Centering Social Justice and Equity in Research on Accessibility to Public Buildings for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities: A scoping review

Research question

The question we took to the literature was: how are concepts of social justice and equity addressed or reported in research relating to accessibility in public buildings for people with mobility disabilities?

Theoretical frameworks to explore social justice

Social justice is a multifaceted approach to identifying social, economic, and political disparities that affect equal access to resources, opportunities, and rights.²⁹ We used a multipronged theoretical approach to understand this complex phenomenon of social justice within accessibility research.³⁰ The theoretical framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Theoretical framework for the study.

The Capability Approach (CA) emphasizes agencies, encompassing personal, social, and environmental dimensions. It extends beyond resource availability, focusing on freedom of choice in decision-making and integrates concepts of dignity and personhood. The intersectionality lens highlights how social identities intersect to shape experiences and opportunities. The Social Justice lens examines systemic inequalities and discriminations. Employing these frameworks in accessibility research offers a comprehensive approach to understanding and addressing social injustices and disability rights. Understanding accessibility using this framework may help shift focus from mere physical entry to public buildings to individuals’ liberty to engage in society beyond.

Search strategy

Using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, shown in Table 1, the search was conducted in seven databases namely, Scopus, PubMed, Ebsco Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Complete, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The person-concept-context framework was used under “persons with mobility disabilities” AND “accessibility” AND “public buildings” for search string [Extended data file 1]. The terms accessibility and public buildings were defined using established Acts and codes.^31,32 The term social justice and equity were intentionally omitted from the search term list to capture studies on accessibility to public buildings that did not explicitly target these concepts but may indirectly contribute to the overall understanding of these issues. From a social justice perspective, the decision to concentrate on mobility disabilities stems from the need to critically examine physical barriers that systematically exclude this population.

We included all study designs to ensure a comprehensive understanding of accessibility challenges for individuals with mobility disabilities. Non-electronic searches were excluded to focus on peer-reviewed, indexed literature, ensuring quality and rigor. The search was carried out with the English language and peer-reviewed original articles as the limits. If the database did not have original articles as a limit, articles on secondary data were removed during the screening process. The search was conducted for all peer-reviewed articles published until 15th August 2023, the date on which the search was carried out. The articles from databases were exported to Rayyan software^® for screening.³³

The review specifically targeted mobility impairments to assess how accessibility barriers in public buildings impact this population. While non-physical impairments (e.g., cognitive, sensory) are equally important, they fall outside the scope of this review, which aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the physical accessibility challenges and systemic inequities faced by individuals with mobility disabilities. This decision was made to allow a focused examination, with an acknowledgment of the need for future studies to address non-visible disabilities in accessibility research.

Screening of articles

Potentially relevant articles were identified by the title and abstract through a blinded screening by LB, and UN using the criteria for study selection. The reviewers were trained by the primary author, SM [Extended data file 2]. Using an iterative approach, to ensure similar understanding by the reviewers, meetings were regularly organized to ensure the inter-rater reliability remained above 0.7. Differences of opinion regarding eligibility were resolved through consensus adjudication by SM. The full text of all the selected studies was imported into the Rayyan^® platform for screening.³³ Subsequently, full texts of articles were screened independently by LB, and UN. Exclusion criteria was applied, and reasons for exclusion were documented. Articles not addressing physical accessibility, such as those focusing solely on theoretical measurements using mathematical algorithms, were excluded from the review. Conflict resolution through meetings and further deliberations by SM ensured an IRR of 0.7 between LB’s and UN’s decisions. The final set of selected articles was exported to start data extraction. Since it is a ScR, a critical appraisal of the studies was not undertaken.³⁴

Data extraction

A data extraction sheet was prepared by SM using Microsoft Excel 2016. The articles were divided across SM, LB, and UN for extraction. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the research, each variable in the extraction sheet was pre-defined. Further, training on data retrieval, regular meetings, and instruction or explanation of each item on the sheet helped to ensure data reliability and the extraction process’s feasibility and comprehensiveness [Extended data file 2].

Data analysis

The extensive dataset underwent qualitative content analysis using an inductive-deductive hybrid thematic method.^35,36 Extraction encompassed three domains: article information, detailed methodology, and extraction of social justice elements within the articles. Following extraction, themes were developed using an inductive-deductive hybrid thematic analysis to enable the convergence of methods and the generation of new theories in the review.³⁵ The thematic analysis was carried out by SM, JW, and verified by NRD in consultation with subject experts, AGM, and AK. This ensured the adequacy of the themes. These themes underwent thorough discussion with reviewers LB and UN, with finalization achieved through complete consensus. To ensure standardized reporting, we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.³⁷

An overview of the reviewed studies’ designs

Among the 84 studies, 42 employed quantitative methodologies, whereas26 studies utilized qualitative approaches, delving into narratives to understand the experiences and perceptions of participants regarding accessibility. A summary of methods is given in Table 2. Additionally, 16 studies were classified as mixed methods or multiple methods. While these studies may or may not strictly adhere to mixed methods methodology, they incorporated more than one method that complemented each other, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of accessibility issues in public buildings.

An overview of the reviewed study sites

Countries

Using the World Bank classification,³⁹ studies were grouped into income categories as shown in Figure 3. Countries such as United States of America and the United Kingdom, had numerous studies, while upper-middle and lower-middle-income countries had varying representation.

Figure 3. Country-wise distribution of studies by World Bank Classification (n=84).

Public buildings

Buildings assessed in the articles, include educational commercial, recreational, hotels/restaurants, transportation, workplaces/business centers, basic amenities, historical sites, religious buildings, and refugee/sheltered structures. A significant number of articles encompassed evaluations of multiple building types. Over 19 articles did not involve building evaluation but included usage perspectives. Summary of the building typologies is given in Table 3. The spatial features assessed in these studies included exterior and interior circulation spaces, basic amenities such as dressing and fitting rooms in malls,⁴⁰ and ablution areas in mosques.^41–43 Some studies also delved into broader aspects of accessibility, encompassing factors such as transportation,⁴⁴ availability of assistive technology,⁴⁵ environmental adaptations, and daily activity spaces.⁴⁶

Results indicate that a wide range of healthcare facilities have been reported from health promotion to rehabilitation centres. We found 6 studies on facilities concerning health promotion and 14 specifically focused on the accessibility of healthcare related facilities. A range of public and private owned healthcare facilities, including hospitals, doctor’s clinics, pharmacies, medical scheme buildings and rehabilitation centres were reported. Among these, 14 studies only 5 of studies were conducted in LMICs, where accessibility challenges were often compounded by resource constraints and lack of infrastructure. A detailed description is presented in Table 3. These studies highlighted the significant barriers faced by individuals with mobility disabilities in accessing essential healthcare services like critical facilities, ranging from physical barriers such as stairs and narrow corridors to limited availability of assistive devices and accessible transport options.^8,44,45 Even when some accessibility features were present, the absence of a single component disrupted the entire accessibility pathway, impacting overall access to health facilities.

Participants

Participant numbers, ranged from 4 to 455 individuals, aged between 18 to 64 years. While most studies included males and females, exceptions were noted in three studies that only included a single-sex group.^40,42,47 A study conducted in Riyadh mosque, excluded females due to sociocultural and religious norms.⁴² Details of participants are presented in Table 4.

Few studies reported on chronic orthopedic and neurological conditions like, osteoarthritis, juvenile rheumatic arthritis, amputation, club foot, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), and traumatic brain injury affecting the motor system. Sixty-nine studies assessed accessibility by people with mobility disabilities without specifying the health conditions. However, one study reported the inclusion of users with mobility aids in a historical building based on observation rather than their health conditions.⁴⁸

Wheelchair was the most common mobility device. Calipers, prostheses, and skateboards were mentioned in three studies. Over 30 studies reported involving other stakeholders to gather their perspectives.

Conceptualisation of accessibility in the research literature

To understand how research conceptualized accessibility, data was extracted on accessibility including definition, tools for evaluation, and legislative underpinnings. Among these articles, only 17 provided a range of definitions for accessibility. Notably, only five studies by Pretto,⁴⁹ Iwarsson,⁵⁰ Evcil,⁵¹ Andrade⁵² and Arbour-Nicitopoulos⁵³ went beyond defining accessibility as mere usability or reaching a destination, grounding it within the holistic need for the realization of freedom and enhancing quality of life of individuals with disabilities.

To assess accessibility quantitative methods were employed in 63 articles, while qualitative tools were utilized in 30 articles. Among the four studies that employed technology or devices for assessment, include Geographical Information System,⁵⁴ and two used the ADA Accessibility Stick (Access, Lawrence, KS, USA),^55,56 a measurement device designed to assess spatial dimensions in public buildings. Additionally, another study utilized a door pressure gauge and the ADA Accessibility Stick.⁵⁷ Commonly used quantitative tools included the McClain and Todd questionnaire (n=5), Accessibility Instruments Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments (n=3), and the Americans with Disabilities Act checklist (n=6). Additionally, over 20 articles utilized checklists derived from building codes or guidelines. Several studies (n=27) based their assessments on country-specific guidelines, codes, or Acts. The tools and guidelines utilised are summarized in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Studies employing multiple methods typically utilised a combination of qualitative and quantitative tools.

Accessibility through the theoretical framework

In this section, we summarise the data extracted on accessibility using the theoretical framework, refer to Table 7 [details given in Extended Data Table 1]. The data aims to give a deeper understanding of intersection between individuals’ capabilities, resources, identities, and experiences on their ability to act and make life choices.

Personal Agencies in the realisation of opportunities

Though the studies have sparingly analysed the impact of personal agencies on accessibility, qualitative reports have highlighted that access to public buildings is an individualistic experience for example individuals with mild disabilities, better health conditions, skills in wheelchair transfers, and access to power mobility demonstrated the ability to independently access public spaces Also, emphasizing the variability of abilities within the disabled community.

Anthropometry can typically intersect with design dimensions impacting the usage of a space. For instance, two studies report body weight of the individual and short stature are two anthropometric factors affecting accessibility.^58,59 Psychological reactions from previous experiences such as fear and anxiety played a crucial role in mobility decisions. Financial constraints led some participants to opt for home confinement to evade disappointment or feelings of burden on family caregivers.^60,61 Additionally, studies reported that changing abilities over time and varying assistive device skills presented new challenges,^62–64 such as access to toileting⁶⁵ and work-related issues.⁶⁶ This highlights the dynamic nature and diversity within disability.

Social Agencies in the realisation of opportunities

The section focuses on the role of individuals within social structures in shaping accessibility outcomes. Individual’s social relationships, societal norms, cultural and religious beliefs, and practices influence their ability to assert their rights and realise accessibility. The key themes, gleaned from the reviewed studies, included social relationships, advocacy, and socio-cultural norms and stereotypes.

Social relationships play a crucial role, with some studies emphasizing the role of service providers and peer groups in engaging and understanding the needs of individuals with mobility disabilities.^67–69 Access as a right rather than charity,^48,61 self-advocacy,⁶⁰ involvement of health professionals in advocacy for access,^50,69 and the process of advocacy⁵⁶ have been reported widely in the studies.

It was noted that traditional roles and beliefs may limit opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Similarly, cultural beliefs may hinder the implementation of accessibility measures, especially in religious and heritage buildings.^64,70 Deep-rooted cultural beliefs about disability as punishment or defectiveness further contribute to barriers to access and inclusion.⁷¹

Environmental Agencies in the realisation of opportunities

The agencies emphasize the dynamic role of environmental factors in influencing accessibility. Key themes include Physical and Environmental Access; Administrative and Bureaucratic Factors; Societal Factors; and Policy and Economic Factors.

All studies reported physical structures positively or negatively on access. Challenges in physical access are evident, with issues such as steep terrain and snow-covered paths hindering mobility. Lack of coordination among responsible departments, societal attitudes and lack of awareness, with instances of ableist attitudes and insensitivity toward disability parking spaces also pose challenges. Policies and frameworks often lack consistent implementation, with enforcement relying heavily on vigilance from access groups. Additionally, economic constraints limit resource availability, leading to a shortage of well-trained professionals and inadequate investment in accessibility measures.

Intersectionality

Each of the agencies serve primarily as contextual factors that intersect with other dimensions of identity to produce unique experiences of marginalisation or privilege. In this study, the terms “personal agency” and “intersectionality” are distinct. While the first focuses on individuals’ capabilities, the second explores the intersections of social identities and power dynamics within broader social structures. Therefore, we further explored the intersecting identities as summarised in Table 8 [details given in Extended Data Table 2].

Many studies have overlooked intersectionality beyond gender and age, with even these identities not analysed in depth. Among quantitative studies, only Gray et al. 2014 analyzed how age, income, and race interact with access to physical space at work.⁷² Only one study reported a statistical comparison between user satisfaction based on age, educational level, and gender.⁷³ While two studies, Tijm et al. 2011 and Waenlor et al. 2002 mention racial and ethnic backgrounds, with no further exploration to understand their impact on accessibility.^74,75

Intersectionality also concerns the caregivers of individuals with mobility disabilities like inaccessible public buildings create added responsibilities to escort a family member with disabilities, as demonstrated in a study by Bhuiya et al.⁷⁶ This study explores age and gendered roles of caregivers get affected due to inaccessibility. For example, an elderly respondent mentioned the physical strain of carrying heavy bags for extended periods while assisting her son with disabilities at bazaars. Similarly, a woman respondent assists her husband due to lack of accessibility have added responsibilities to her daily chores. Our findings underscore the broader societal implications of inaccessible environments, revealing restricted physical access imposes additional burdens on caregivers, often exacerbating existing social inequalities.

Though studies highlight the complex interplay between occupation, finances, and accessibility, these have been often overlooked during analysis. Moreover, insights from studies like Salie et al.⁷⁷ and Bhuiya et al.,⁷⁶ underscore the bidirectional relationship between occupation and accessibility, illustrating how limited access can both result from and perpetuate occupational limitations. This summary aims to inform accessibility stakeholders that multiple identities intersect to produce unique experiences among people with mobility disabilities in public buildings, rather than indicating one group’s greater marginalisation.

The intersection of Social Justice, Equity, and Human Rights in Accessibility Research: Implications for Social and Functional Outcomes

The studies reveal three themes namely, Structural (in) equality, Empowerment and Autonomy, and Human Rights violations showcasing the intersection of social justice, equity, and human rights within accessibility research. Systemic challenges within society, where ad hoc approaches to accessibility prevail,⁷⁸ often lack the political will and proper funding for modifications.^79–81 Similarly, violations of fundamental human rights to dignity, autonomy, safety, basic needs, privacy and safety were reported in the studies. Violations perpetuated due to discriminatory practices, paternalization, and ableist attitudes, contribute to the reduced access to public buildings and marginalisation of people with mobility disabilities.

A growing trend of including stakeholders in research is noted. However, the instrumentalisation of participants within research still persists. This further leads to a lack of understanding of the diverse and changing needs of people with mobility disabilities and perpetuates imbalanced power dynamics. It can be noted through participant reports that accessible environments are not just about physical access; it is about freedom, autonomy, and the realization of fundamental human rights.

The social outcomes discussed in the studies include basic functioning, engaging in paid and unpaid activities, social engagements, safety and health. These outcomes are critical as they directly impact the inclusion of individuals with mobility disabilities in society. Thirty-one studies did not report on social outcomes. However, some studies, although not directly assessing these outcomes, highlighted the impact of accessibility on aspects such as access to pensions,⁸² risk of injuries,⁸³ lack of political participation, and risk of homelessness.⁷⁴ Summary of sample codes, and themes on social justice and social outcomes reported in the studies is given in Table 9 [details given in Extended Data Table 3 and 4].

Practice and policy recommendations from accessibility research

Recommendations across the studies were categorized into practical measures (n=41), research initiatives (n=19), and policy developments (n=13) [Extended Data Table 5]. Under the practice category, suggestions involve securing finances, ensuring equipment availability, conducting awareness campaigns, providing incentives for accessibility to constructors, regular monitoring, and engaging multidisciplinary teams. Moreover, studies propose organising training and awareness sessions, promoting partnerships, documenting advancements, and advocating for accessibility by both healthcare professionals and individuals with disabilities themselves.

Within the realm of research, recommendations concentrate on creating dependable evaluation instruments, conducting qualitative research to comprehend requirements, guaranteeing broad geographical inclusivity, performing comprehensive field investigations, establishing databases, creating innovative low-technology gadgets, and utilizing broader and larger sample sizes for research purposes. Finally, policy recommendation includes developing context-specific regulations for historic or cultural structures, involving individuals with disabilities in decision-making procedures, ensuring the ethical execution of regulations, and facilitating their enforcement.

Personal factors and intersectional identities

Studies have highlighted the significant influence of personal agency or capabilities on individual autonomy on movement and accessibility. Persons with mild impairments displayed varying levels of self-sufficiency in accessing public buildings. Illustrating the diversity within disability Financial restrictions often compelled some participants to select home confinement, demonstrating the intricate interplay between economic factors and accessibility. Emotional factors like apprehension and unease also impacted movement choices, underscoring the significance of safe and comfortable mobility on mental well-being. In a recent study by Okezue, 2024, participants especially women with disabilities reported higher levels of anxiety when using public buildings.⁹² Social structures additionally molded movement decisions, with demographic factors affecting individuals’ placements within their surroundings. Understanding the multifaceted nature of personal agency is crucial for developing inclusive policies and environments that cater to the diverse needs of individuals with disabilities.⁹³

Intersectionality intersects with accessibility research by highlighting the complex interplay of various social identities and power dynamics in shaping the experiences of individuals with mobility disabilities. The intersection of inherent vulnerabilities can create complex challenges for these individuals, affecting their choices and movement decisions.⁹⁴ While many studies acknowledged that intersecting identities impact accessibility, there is a lack of statistical inference due to thinly stratified sampling.^95,96 Most studies recognize overlapping identities such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, income, and education intersected with access to physical spaces. However, there are difficulties to generate inferences. Research in this area often lacks comprehensive assessments due to methodological constraints and limited focus on specific identity dimensions. This limits the practical application of the intersectional lens.

Despite these constraints, some studies exhibited the interconnectedness of multiple identities in shaping accessibility experiences like occupation, finances, and accessibility were intricately related,^72,97 Thus, illustrating the bidirectional relationship between limited access and opportunity constraints. Nonetheless, these gaps suggest avenues for future research. Moreover, the impact of intersectionality on accessibility experiences for caregivers of individuals with mobility disabilities was relatively underexplored. Additionally, while anthropometry was not typically considered under intersectionality, it intersected with other dimensions of identity within this framework, influencing accessibility experiences.

Additionally, future research should employ more robust methodologies to capture the nuanced intersections of identity and power dynamics, involving mixed-methods approaches, longitudinal studies, and participatory research methods.⁹⁵

Social factors impacting access to public buildings

The examination of social agency highlights the noteworthy impact of relationships, advocacy efforts, and socio-cultural norms on accessibility. Societal connections are pivotal in the realization of access like staff’s involvement in planning lectures for students with disabilities to reduce travel time. Advocacy efforts range from promoting disability access as a right to challenging discriminatory practices, making their voices matter, and societal attitudes. Nonetheless, socio-cultural norms and stereotypes can obstruct availability measures by reinforcing traditional roles and cultural beliefs. Relatives, companions, and community participants either empower or impede access to amenities by individuals with disabilities.⁹⁸ Dealing with these dynamics is crucial for fostering inclusive environments and advocating for the rights of individuals with disabilities.⁹⁹ Promotion campaigns, driven by establishments backing individuals with disabilities, can help change policies and promote inclusive practices.

Socio-cultural norms contribute to creating challenges like shame, employment difficulties, and social participation.¹⁰⁰ These negative perceptions create barriers to accessing essential services and support, exacerbating challenges faced by people with mobility disabilities. Addressing these norms requires challenging harmful beliefs, promoting awareness, and education, and advocating for inclusive policies and practices to create a more accessible and equitable environment for individuals with mobility disabilities.

Environmental Factors impacting access to public buildings

While physical access was reported across all the studies, societal attitudes also posed a significant barrier. Ableism, characterized by prejudice and discrimination against individuals with disabilities, manifests in societal norms and behaviors, limiting access to essential services and social inclusion. Economic constraints further hinder resource availability, emphasizing the need for increased investment in accessibility measures.¹⁰¹ Collaborative efforts prioritizing awareness-raising, policy implementation, and resource allocation are essential to ensure equal access and opportunities for individuals with disabilities.^102,103 Addressing ableist attitudes and investing in comprehensive accessibility measures are vital to enhancing the quality of life and independence of individuals with disabilities.^104,105 The studies highlight the complex interplay of personal, social, and environmental factors, emphasizing the importance of addressing multifaceted challenges to create inclusive and accessible public spaces for individuals with mobility disabilities.

The studies highlight the complex interplay of personal, social, and environmental factors, emphasizing the importance of addressing multifaceted challenges to create inclusive and accessible public spaces for individuals with mobility disabilities. By leveraging the strengths of various agencies, stakeholders can work towards creating more inclusive and accessible public spaces for individuals with mobility disabilities.

Social justice & equity

The intersection of social justice, equity, and human rights in accessibility research reveals systemic issues and discriminatory practices that marginalise individuals with disabilities in accessing public buildings and services. Social justice principles emphasize access, participation, equity, and human rights for all individuals, including those with disabilities,¹⁰⁶ while equity in accessibility research ensures equal opportunities and resources for full societal engagement.¹⁰⁷ Human rights frameworks advocate for the fundamental rights of inclusion and protection of individuals with disabilities from discrimination.

Systemic issues such as ad hoc approaches to accessibility and lack of political will and funding hinder progress in making buildings inclusive and accessible.¹⁰⁸ Discriminatory practices exacerbate marginalisation, perpetuating power imbalances where individuals with disabilities are objectified in decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of proper funding for retrofitting and accessibility modifications can hinder progress in making buildings inclusive and accessible for individuals with disabilities.¹⁰⁸

Societal attitudes, including cultural beliefs and ableist norms, create barriers to access and perpetuate inequalities for individuals with disabilities. Lack of involvement in decision-making processes regarding facility development, reflects on the structural inequalities. For instance, the instrumentalization of participants perpetuates power dynamics, where individuals with disabilities are treated as objects of study rather than active agents in decision-making processes.

Addressing these issues requires comprehensive strategies that prioritize collaboration, awareness, and policy implementation to ensure equal access and opportunities for all individuals, irrespective of abilities. Accessible environments encompass more than mere physical access; they embody principles of freedom, autonomy, and the realization of fundamental human rights. Thus, promoting social justice, equity, and human rights within accessibility research is crucial for advancing towards a more inclusive and accessible future.

Access to these facilities especially the buildings concerning health promotion like gyms, and rehabilitation are critical for ensuring equitable healthcare, enabling timely treatment, and ongoing rehabilitation.¹⁶ A wide range of healthcare facilities have been reported in studies including health promotion like gyms, health clubs to rehabilitation following disaster.^54,81 Barriers to accessibility in government or private health services, such as physical obstacles, lack of assistive devices, and inadequate transportation options, disproportionately impact individuals with disabilities, particularly those in LMICs.^{8,27,28,44,54,81} Enhancing accessibility in these settings is not only a matter of convenience but also a fundamental aspect of achieving social justice and health equity.¹⁶ Policy efforts must prioritise accessibility, ensuring that health facilities are fully inclusive and responsive to the diverse needs of individuals with disabilities.

Recommendations from accessibility research

The studies recommend use of pragmatic steps, research initiatives, and policy advancements, offering ways to tackle accessibility issues in future. Research recommendations are essential in both academia and public realms. In academia, they help pinpointing gaps in current literature and propose pathways and sets agendas for future studies.¹⁰⁹ Thus, these suggestions contribute to the progression of knowledge and the formulation of novel theories and concepts and help bridge the gap between research and practice, ensuring that evidence-based approaches are effectively implemented in real-world settings.¹¹⁰

Research recommendations are crucial for policy decisions and practice. Suggestions derived from research contribute to evidence-based policies and interventions aimed at addressing societal challenges like accessibility.¹¹¹ For example, the review studies recommend need for health professional engagement in accessibility to public buildings, thus encouraging interdisciplinary research through multidisciplinary collaborations.

Strengths of the review

Centering the review on human agency and freedoms, and realization of human rights, the framework explains the social model of disability. A versatile and interdisciplinary, framework helped in examining complex social issues like accessibility challenges. This framework enriched the research by providing a theoretical foundation and was instrumental in providing a comprehensive analysis within a broader social justice and equity framework.

With the social justice and capabilities as guiding principles, the review not only enhances the relevance and applicability of the findings but also underscores the importance of addressing systemic inequalities and promoting human rights in accessibility initiatives. The review is centered around advocating for a rights-based and person-centered approach to accessibility, thus highlights the ethical imperative of ensuring equal access and opportunities for all members of society, regardless of their abilities.

Study limitations

One significant limitation is the likelihood of publication bias, as we concentrated mainly on peer-reviewed articles obtained from databases. This strategy might have excluded articles available in alternative forms, like grey literature or symposium proceedings, which might have offered extra perspectives into accessibility investigation. Furthermore, while attempts were made to include research from various geographical areas, there might be poor representation from LMICs. This might impact the generalizability of the results and might neglect distinctive viewpoints and obstacles encountered by people with mobility disabilities in these settings. The review did not carry out methodological appraisals of the studies.

While the review focuses on mobility impairments to explore physical accessibility in public buildings, it acknowledges that non-visible disabilities, such as cognitive or sensory impairments, also present significant accessibility challenges. The importance of non-visible disabilities is recognized, and future studies should address how buildings that are physically accessible may still exclude individuals with other kinds of disabilities.

Future directions and implications

We propose a “Ten-step approach” to prioritize social justice and equity within accessibility research as illustrated in Figure 4. These steps encompass stages of a project, from pre-initiation to knowledge dissemination. Step 1 emphasizes the formation of a diverse research team, as exemplified by Nijs,¹¹² where team members with disabilities significantly influenced the authors. Step 2 focuses on integrating opportunities within the methodology to capture intersectional identities such as age, sex, socio-economic status, and sexuality. Step 3 underscores active participation by individuals with disabilities, including the use of photovoice. Step 4 highlights involving stakeholders—family, professionals, public officials, and community members—as they all contribute to realizing opportunities through accessible buildings. Steps 5 & 6 encourage de-differentiation and self-categorization by participants to prevent the creation of distinctions between individuals with and without disabilities, allowing participants to choose their participation category and avoid socially constructed categorization. In the analysis phase, Step 7 suggests using an intersectionality lens to understand the impact of diverse identities on accessibility to public buildings, while Step 8 emphasizes researcher and participant reflexivity. Step 9 involves disseminating findings locally and globally, followed by continued follow-up in Step 10 to explore how accessibility impacts the realization of opportunities over time as disability changes.

Figure 4. Ten-steps solution to integrate social justice and equity within accessibility research.

This “Ten-step approach” provides a comprehensive roadmap for embedding social justice and equity into accessibility research, practice, and policy development, ensuring that future efforts are inclusive, intersectional, and responsive to the evolving needs of individuals with disabilities. By focusing on collaboration, intersectionality, and continuous follow-up, this approach offers a framework for creating meaningful, sustainable changes in accessibility standards and practices.