Reports on Disability and Accessibility in Canada
Barriers to Accessibility in Public Spaces: Findings from the 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability

Abstract

This study uses the 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability to explore the experiences of barriers to accessibility in public spaces among persons with disabilities aged 15 years and over. More closely examining the barriers encountered by persons with disabilities as they navigate their environments is important in furthering progress towards an accessible and inclusive Canada. The descriptive statistics show that over half of persons with disabilities experience barriers in public spaces and that the proportion experiencing barriers in this domain varies by disability-related and sociodemographic characteristics. When multiple factors are taken into account using multivariate techniques, many of these characteristics continued to be significantly associated with experiencing barriers in public spaces. Disability-related factors independently associated with higher odds of experiencing barriers included having more severe disabilities, having unmet needs for disability supports and having unmet needs for help with everyday activities. In terms of sociodemographic factors, the odds of experiencing barriers to accessibility in public spaces increased with age and were higher among women, 2SLGBTQ+ persons and those residing in medium or large urban population centres. 

Introduction

The Accessible Canada Act (ACA), along with its regulations^Note 1 and related standards,^Note 2 aims to make Canada barrier-free by 2040. The ACA defines a barrier as anything that prevents persons with disabilities from fully participating in society.^Note 3 The ACA provides a framework for making progress towards more inclusive communities, workplaces, programs and services through the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to accessibility. It includes the following priority areas: employment; built environment;^Note 4 information and communication technologies (ICT);^Note 5 communication, other than ICT; procurement of goods, services, and facilities; design and delivery of programs and services; and transportation. Research indicates that barriers to accessibility can manifest in different forms and affect persons with disabilities in a variety of situations, such as limiting their employment opportunities (Grisé et al., 2019), social participation (Sundar et al., 2016; Wee & Lysaght, 2009) and overall quality of life (Forster et al., 2023).

Canada has embraced the social model of disability, which conceptualizes disability as the result of interactions between functional limitations and barriers to accessibility in the environment (Pianosi et al., 2023). Developing a better understanding of barriers to accessibility encountered by persons with disabilities is a critical step towards the design of appropriate interventions to remove them and, ultimately, ensure that our communities, workplaces and services are fully accessible.

While previous research has highlighted issues related to barriers to accessibility in Canada (Choi, 2021; McDiarmid, 2021), data from the 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability (CSD) provides an opportunity to more closely examine barriers to accessibility encountered by Canadians with disabilities. The 2022 CSD collected information on 27 types of barriers to accessibility experienced by persons with disabilities because of their condition across four domains: public spaces; behaviours, misconceptions or assumptions; communication; and Internet use. This is the first in a series of four reports (one for each domain) providing further analyses of barriers to accessibility among persons with disabilities aged 15 years and over. The report focuses on barriers encountered by persons with disabilities in public spaces, which can be understood as indoor or outdoor built environments designed for utilization by the public.

Persons with disabilities navigate a variety of environments in their daily activities and these spaces can include diverse barriers, such as those related to structural design or navigation (Gupta et al., 2020; Hammel et al., 2015). Inclusive design in the physical environment has emerged as an important aspect of increasing accessibility, seeking to address physical accessibility while considering cognitive, sensory and other diverse needs (Fernandez et al., 2021; Zallio & Clarkson, 2021). Facing environmental challenges has been associated with being less likely to leave one’s home environment, being less physically active, having less independence and poorer well-being outcomes among persons with disabilities (Forster et al., 2023; Eisenberg et al., 2017; Satariano et al., 2016; Beard et al., 2009; White et al., 2010). While research on barriers to accessibility is often based on qualitative studies capturing the lived experiences of persons with disabilities, the current study allows for a quantitative examination of experiences of specific barriers among this population.

The main goal of this report is to examine the associations between disability-related and sociodemographic characteristics and the likelihood of experiencing barriers to accessibility in public spaces. The report starts with an examination of the prevalence of experiencing barriers with various features in public spaces. Next, it focuses on how the prevalence of experiencing at least one barrier varies based on disability-related factors and across sociodemographic groups. Finally, logistic regression modelling is used to determine the association of each variable with the odds of experiencing barriers in public spaces, while controlling for sociodemographic and disability-related characteristics.

Data and Methods

Data source

The Canadian Survey on Disability

Statistics Canada has collected data on disability for more than 30 years. Since 2012, the Canadian Survey on Disability (CSD) has been Canada’s main source of that data. The CSD provides comprehensive data on persons with disabilities for each province and territory. The survey also collects essential information on disability types and severity, supports for persons with disabilities, their employment profiles, income, education and other disability-specific information.

The survey population for the 2022 CSD was comprised of Canadians aged 15 years and over as of the date of the 2021 Census of the Population (May 2021) who were living in private dwellings. It excludes those living in institutions, on Canadian Armed Forces bases, on First Nations reserves and those living in collective dwellings. As the institutionalized population is excluded, the data, particularly for the older age groups, should be interpreted accordingly.

The CSD uses Disability Screening Questions (DSQ) which are based on the social model of disability (Grondin, 2016). This model defines disability as the relationship between body function and structure, daily activities, and social participation, while recognizing the role of environmental factors. In keeping with this framework, the CSD targeted respondents who not only have a difficulty or impairment due to a long-term condition or health-related problem but also experience limitations in their daily activities. The CSD definition of disability includes anyone who reported being “sometimes”, “often” or “always” limited in their daily activities due to a long-term condition or health problem, as well as anyone who reported being “rarely” limited if they were also unable to do certain tasks or could only do them with a lot of difficulty.

Measures

Barriers to accessibility in public spaces

The main outcome of interest is whether at least one barrier to accessibility in public spaces was experienced at least sometimes in the last 12 months. Using a frequency scale (not applicable, never, sometimes, often or always), CSD respondents were asked to rate how often they experienced barriers^Note 6 with any of the following 11 features inside or outside public spaces because of their condition in the past 12 months:

• a) Entrances or exits to buildings
• b) Floorplans inside buildings
• c) Lighting or sound levels inside buildings
• d) Public washrooms
• e) Wait lines
• f) Self-serve technology
• g) Announcements or alarms
• h) Signs or directions
• i) Pedestrian signals at intersections or crosswalks
• j) Sidewalks when covered in ice or snow
• k) Sidewalks in general

For the purposes of this report, those who indicated that they experienced barriers “sometimes”, “often” or “always” were classified as “experienced a barrier.”

Disability-related characteristics

Disability-related factors can shape the experience of persons with disabilities with barriers to accessibility. For example, certain disability types are associated with experiencing certain types of barriers in the environment, and higher degrees of severity likely exacerbate the challenges of navigating everyday life (Hébert et al., 2024; Choi, 2021). Persons with disabilities often need certain disability supports or help from paid or unpaid caregivers to overcome barriers to accessibility in their daily lives (Wray, 2024; Berardi et al., 2021; Allen & Mor, 1997). Having unmet needs in this regard is associated with decreased ability to participate in everyday activities and lower wellbeing ratings (Casey, 2015; Shooshtari et al., 2012; Zwicker et al., 2017). The following disability-related characteristics are included in all analyses conducted.

Disability types

The CSD collects information on 10 disability types: seeing, hearing, mobility, flexibility, dexterity, pain-related, learning, developmental, mental health-related, and memory. To meet the definition of a disability for a particular type, respondents must have reported being “sometimes”, “often” or “always” limited in their daily activities due to a long-term condition or health problem or reported being “rarely” limited if they were also unable to do certain tasks or could only do them with a lot of difficulty.^Note 7 An additional variable that counts the number of co-occurring disability types is included in the descriptive analysis.

Severity of disability

A global severity score was developed for the CSD, which was calculated for each person using: the number of disability types that a person has, the level of difficulty experienced in performing certain tasks, and the frequency of activity limitations. To simplify the concept of severity, four severity classes were established: mild, moderate, severe and very severe. Note that the name assigned to each class is intended to facilitate use of a severity score and is not a label or judgement concerning the person’s level of disability. In this report, any reference to severity is based on the global severity classes.

Unmet needs for disability supports

The 2022 CSD asks several questions regarding needs for various disability supports, including personal aids and assistive devices (e.g., canes, walkers, specialized software or architectural features in the home such as widened doorways and ramps), prescription medication, as well as access to healthcare therapies and services (e.g., counselling services, physiotherapy). In this report, an unmet need for disability supports refers to instances in which persons with disabilities need but do not have at least one type of disability support – whether it be for aids and assistive devices, medication or access to healthcare therapies and services.

Unmet needs for help with everyday activities

The 2022 CSD asks questions regarding the need for help with any of the following everyday activities: preparing meals, everyday housework, heavy household chores, getting to appointments or running errands, looking after personal finances, personal care, basic medical care at home, moving around inside a residence or other types of help. The help could be provided by family, friends, neighbours or organizations and could include both paid and unpaid work. In this report, an unmet need for help with everyday activities refers to instances in which persons with disabilities need help they don’t usually receive or need more help than they usually receive with at least one type of everyday activity.

Sociodemographic characteristics

Intersectional approaches are consistent with the social model of disability and consider how disability interacts with other social characteristics to create distinct experiences (Björnsdóttir & Traustadóttir, 2010). For example, among youth and young adults with disabilities, those belonging to racialized groups tend to have worse school and work outcomes (Lindsay et al., 2022). It is important to include sociodemographic factors within the analysis as these characteristics can have effects of marginalization, which may lead to increased likelihood to experience barriers to accessibility. These sociodemographic characteristics include age, gender, 2SLGBTQ+ identity, racialized groups and immigrant status.^Note 8

Persons with disabilities often cite cost as a reason for unmet needs for supports (Hébert et al., 2024), therefore, income level is essential to consider when examining issues related to accessibility. Given the differences in the layout and features of public spaces among rural areas and urban population centres of different sizes, place of residence is also included as a sociodemographic characteristic.

Age was categorized into four groups: 15 to 24 years, 25 to 44 years, 45 to 64 years and 65 years and over. For gender, a two-category gender variable was used to protect the confidentiality of non-binary persons, given the relatively small size of this population in Canada. More specifically, non-binary persons have been redistributed into the “men” and “women” categories. The category of “men” includes cisgender and transgender men (and/or boys), as well as some non-binary persons, while “women” includes cisgender and transgender women (and/or girls), as well as some non-binary persons (in tables these categories are denoted as “men+” and “women+”). Using questions on sex at birth, gender identity and sexual orientation, the 2SLGBTQ+ variable includes those who reported being lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual or another sexual orientation that is not heterosexual (LGB+), as well as non-binary persons and transgender women and men.^Note 9

Immigrant status was categorized as immigrant, non-immigrant and non-permanent resident.^Note 10 "Immigrant" refers to a person who is, or who has ever been, a landed immigrant or permanent resident. Immigrants who have obtained Canadian citizenship by naturalization are included in this group.^Note 11 "Racialized” refers to whether a person is a visible minority as defined by the Employment Equity Act as "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour". The visible minority population consists mainly of the following groups: South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean and Japanese. The non-racialized category includes those who identified as White only and excludes Indigenous people.

Income was represented by quintiles which were based on after-tax economic family income adjusted by family size.^Note 12 Place of residence differentiates between rural areas and population centres of different sizes. Population centres are classified into three groups, depending on the size of their Census population: small population centres, with a Census population between 1,000 and 29,999; medium population centres, with a Census population between 30,000 and 99,999; or large urban population centres, with a Census population of 100,000 or more. Rural areas are classified as outside of population centres.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the prevalence of experiencing barriers to accessibility in public spaces in the last 12 months among persons with disabilities aged 15 years and over. In all instances, proportions are calculated based on the entire population of persons with disabilities.^Note 13

Logistic regression modeling was used to identify key factors associated with higher or lower odds of experiencing barriers to accessibility among persons with disabilities, while controlling for the effects of other disability-related and sociodemographic covariates at the same time. Given that severity accounts for each of the 10 disability types, the individual disability types are excluded from the initial logistic regression model. The inclusion of both severity and all ten disability types in a single regression model introduces multicollinearity issues. Accordingly, the 10 disability type variables were assessed in a separate logistic regression model that excludes the severity variable, but controls for all other covariates.

Findings from the logistic regression analysis are reported using odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals. An odds ratio represents the ratio of the odds of an event occurring (i.e., experiencing at least one barrier to accessibility) for one group vs the odds of the same event occurring for a reference group. Accordingly, an odds ratio tells us about the difference in odds of experiencing such barriers between groups after controlling for other predictors in the model and could point to: no difference in odds (OR=1), higher odds for a given group compared with a reference group (OR>1), or lower odds for a given group compared with a reference group (OR<1). Higher odds ratios indicate that a given group is more likely to experience barriers compared with the reference group.

Interpreting odds ratio results should be done with caution. The value of odds ratio estimates determines the direction of the effect (i.e., whether a certain group has higher or lower odds of experiencing barriers) but their magnitude may vary given a different set of covariates or a different sample; they are accordingly challenging to interpret and should not be compared with odds ratios from other analyses (Norton et al., 2018).

For this report, the significance level was set at p < 0.05. All estimates were weighted to represent the Canadian population of persons with disabilities aged 15 years and over. The bootstrap technique was used to estimate variance and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to account for the complex survey design.

Results and Discussion

Prevalence of experiencing barriers to accessibility in public spaces

Over half of persons with disabilities experience barriers to accessibility in public spaces

Of the nearly 8 million persons with disabilities aged 15 years and over, approximately 4.5 million (56%) experienced one or more barriers to accessibility in public spaces at least sometimes during the last 12 months. When examined by feature, barriers related to “sidewalks when covered in ice or snow” (36%), “wait lines” (31%), “sidewalks in general” (26%) and “entrances or exits to buildings” (20%) were the most common^Note 14 (Chart 1).

Prevalence of experiencing barriers to accessibility in public spaces increases with disability severity and number of co-occurring disability types

As disability severity increased, so did the proportion of persons with disabilities who experienced at least one barrier to accessibility in public spaces. Persons with very severe disabilities (81%) were more likely to experience such barriers compared with those with mild disabilities (37%) (Table 1).

Persons with multiple disabilities were more likely to experience barriers to accessibility in public spaces compared with those with a single disability. For example, those with four or more disability types (77%) were more than twice as likely to experience at least one barrier to accessibility than those with one disability type (33%).

More than 7 in 10 (71%) persons with disabilities have two or more co-occurring disability types (Hébert et al., 2024). The co-occurrence of disability types means that experiences of barriers may be a result of a specific disability type or a combination of disability types. As such, this report did not focus on descriptive analysis by disability type, however prevalence of experiencing barriers to accessibility in public spaces by disability type is presented in Chart 2 (Annex) for information purposes. Logistic regression modelling (discussed in the next section) was utilized to examine the association between each disability type and the likelihood of experiencing barriers while controlling for all other disability types (Table 3).

Persons with disabilities with unmet needs for disability supports (i.e., aids and assistive devices, medication, or healthcare therapies and services) were more likely to experience at least one barrier to accessibility in public spaces compared with those who did not have any unmet needs (65% vs. 45%). Similarly, those who reported unmet needs for help with everyday activities were more likely to experience such barriers compared with those who had their needs met (76% vs 46%) (Table 1).

Prevalence of experiencing barriers to accessibility in public spaces increases with age and is greater among women, immigrants, persons with lower income, and those living in medium population centres

Among persons with disabilities, the proportion who experienced at least one barrier to accessibility in public spaces varied by age, gender, immigrant status, income and place of residence (Table 1). Persons with disabilities aged 65 years and over (69%), 45 to 64 years (58%) and 25 to 44 years (45%) were all more likely to experience such barriers compared with those aged 15 to 24 years (41%). Women (59%) were more likely than men (53%) to encounter one or more barriers to accessibility in public spaces.

Immigrants (60%) were more likely than non-immigrants (55%) to experience at least one barrier to accessibility in public spaces. There were no significant differences in the prevalence of experiencing barriers between: 2SLGBTQ+ and non-2SLGBTQ+ persons with disabilities, or racialized and non-racialized persons with disabilities.

Encountering barriers to accessibility in public spaces was more prevalent among persons with disabilities in lower income groups. For example, the proportion of persons with disabilities who reported such barriers increased from 50% among those in the highest income quintile to 63% among those in the lowest income quintile.  

When examined by place of residence, persons with disabilities living in medium population centres (61%) were more likely to experience at least one barrier to accessibility in public spaces compared with those living in rural areas (54%). However, there were no significant differences for either small or large urban population centres relative to rural areas.

Key factors associated with the likelihood of experiencing barriers to accessibility in public spaces

While descriptive analyses highlighted how some groups are more likely to experience barriers than others, they do not simultaneously account for other characteristics that may increase the likelihood of experiencing barriers. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify the key factors associated with the likelihood of experiencing barriers to accessibility among persons with disabilities, while controlling for the effect of other disability-related and sociodemographic covariates at the same time.

More severe disabilities and unmet needs for disability supports or help with everyday activities are associated with higher odds of experiencing barriers

The importance of disability-related factors was further confirmed by the logistic regression modelling. After controlling for other covariates, the odds of experiencing at least one barrier to accessibility in public spaces steadily increased with severity of disabilities. Compared with persons with mild disabilities, those with very severe disabilities faced over four times higher odds (OR=4.1; 95% CI: 3.4, 4.8) of experiencing such barriers (Table 2). When all other factors were considered, persons with at least one unmet need for help with everyday activities had higher odds (OR=2.2; 95% CI: 1.9, 2.4) of experiencing at least one barrier compared with those who had their needs met. Similarly, persons with disabilities who reported at least one unmet need for disability supports (OR=1.7; 95% CI: 1.5, 1.9) had higher odds of experiencing barriers to accessibility compared with persons who had their needs met for these supports. Since disability within the social model is understood as the interaction between a person’s functional limitations and barriers in their environment, some features in public spaces may cease to impose barriers if persons with disabilities have all required disability supports or help from paid or unpaid caregivers. When persons with disabilities don’t have access to required supports, it follows that they are more likely to experience barriers to accessibility. This is consistent with qualitative research demonstrating that access to different types of support (e.g., assistive technology, social support) can impact the everyday participation of persons with disabilities (Hammel et al., 2015).

The likelihood of experiencing barriers increases with age and is higher among women, 2SLGBTQ+ persons, and those living in medium or large urban population centres

When it comes to sociodemographic covariates, age, gender, identifying as 2SLGBTQ+ and place of residence were significant predictors of experiencing at least one barrier to accessibility in public spaces, after controlling for other covariates. While significant differences by immigrant status and income were observed in the descriptive analyses, these differences did not persist when all other variables were held constant.

The odds of experiencing one or more barriers in public spaces increased with age. Compared with youth with disabilities (15 to 24 years), those aged 25 to 44 (OR=1.2; 95% CI: 1.0, 1.4), 45 to 64 (OR=2.0; 95% CI: 1.7, 2.3), and 65 years and over (OR=3.2; 95% CI: 2.7, 3.8) had higher odds of experiencing such barriers (Table 2). Women with disabilities faced higher odds (OR=1.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.4) of encountering barriers in public spaces than men with disabilities.

While there was no significant difference between the 2SLGBTQ+ and non-2SLGBTQ+ populations in the prevalence of experiencing barriers in the descriptive analysis, it was a significant predictor after controlling for other factors. 2SLGBTQ+ persons with disabilities had higher odds (OR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.7) of experiencing such barriers compared with non-2SLGBTQ+ persons with disabilities. This is consistent with research about transgender people indicating that their marginalization and oppression can have disabling effects, thereby increasing their likelihood of experiencing barriers in different contexts (Baril et al., 2020). Age was a particularly important covariate to take into account, given a previous research study found that persons with disabilities who identify as 2SLGBTQ+ are substantially younger on average than their non-2SLGBTQ+ counterparts (Rabinowitz, 2024). Additionally, the study found that among persons with disabilities aged 15 to 24 and 25 to 34 years, 2SLGBTQ+ persons were more likely to experience barriers in public spaces compared with their non-2SLGBTQ+ counterparts.

With regards to place of residence, compared with persons with disabilities living in rural areas, those living in medium or large urban population centres had higher odds (OR=1.5; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.8 and OR=1.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.4, respectively) of experiencing barriers in public spaces. It is worth noting that the barriers in public spaces that were included in the CSD were more relevant to urban rather than rural areas, where there may be less expectation for a pedestrian environment. Examining accessibility in rural areas may require a closer look at barriers related to specific geographic features in rural areas and barriers related to transportation (Levesque, 2020; Vitale Brovarone & Cotella, 2020). Another important consideration is that while place of residence may result in increased interactions with the local environment, people may frequently visit different sized population centres as part of their regular work, school, leisure, retail or service use activities.

Developmental, mobility and hearing disability types are associated with experiencing barriers

Given that 71% of persons with disabilities have two or more co-occurring disability types (Hébert et al., 2024), the effect of each disability type must be determined while the effects of all other disability types are controlled for. Using a separate logistic regression model, the likelihood of encountering at least one barrier to accessibility in public spaces was examined when considering all 10 disability types as predictors and controlling for other covariates.

The odds of experiencing barriers in public spaces were higher among those with developmental (OR=2.2; 95% CI: 1.7, 2.8), mobility (OR=2.1; 95% CI: 1.8, 2.4) or hearing (OR=1.5; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.8) disabilities (Table 3). Given that the barriers in public spaces examined in this study have to do with movement, navigation, interpreting information, or receiving and responding to auditory signals, this may give rise to difficulties specific to these disability types. When thinking about accessibility in public spaces, design elements to address the needs of persons with mobility and hearing disabilities may be prioritized, with less attention given to the heterogenous nature of developmental disabilities (Sherman & Sherman, 2013). Other disability types that were associated with higher odds of experiencing barriers were flexibility (OR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.6), dexterity (OR=1.3; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.6), pain-related (OR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.6), learning (OR=1.3; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.6) and memory (OR=1.3; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.6). No significant differences in odds were found based on having mental health-related or seeing disabilities.^Note 15 These findings emphasize the importance of studying different limitations in research on barriers to accessibility in public spaces, which has been found to focus primarily on mobility limitations (Carlsson et al., 2022).

Conclusion

This report demonstrates the importance of considering severity and type of disability, unmet needs, age, gender, 2SLGBTQ+ identity and place of residence (urban/rural) when examining experiences of accessibility in public spaces among persons with disabilities. By identifying disability-related and sociodemographic factors that place persons with disabilities at higher risk of experiencing barriers in public spaces, these findings can inform programs and interventions aimed at improving accessibility in this domain. For example, the strong association between unmet needs for disability supports or help with everyday activities and the likelihood of experiencing barriers suggests that interventions aimed at addressing unmet needs could be effective in improving accessibility in the built environment.

Further research is needed to examine the various ways in which barriers to accessibility are experienced within different contexts and for different subpopulations, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods. For example, it’s important to explore the driving factors for experiencing barriers in urban population centres compared to rural areas. Similarly, more qualitative research can inform our understanding of higher odds of experiencing barriers among women and 2SLGBTQ+ persons with disabilities.

Annex

References

Accessibility Standards Canada. (2023). Accessibility Standards Canada and CSA Group collaborate to publish three new accessibility standards. https://www.canada.ca/en/accessibility-standards-canada/news/2023/02/accessibility-standards-canada-and-csa-group-collaborate-to-publish-three-new-accessibility-standards.html

Allen, S. M., & Mor, V. (1997). The prevalence and consequences of unmet need: Contrasts between older and younger adults with disability. Medical Care, 35(11), 1132-1148. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3767475

Baril, A., Sansfaçon, A. P., & Gelly, M. A. (2020). Digging beneath the surface: When disability meets gender identity. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 9(4), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v9i4.666

Beard, J. R., Blaney, S., Cerda, M., Frye, V., Lovasi, G. S., Ompad, D., Rundle, A., & Vlahov, D. (2009). Neighborhood characteristics and disability in older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 64B(2), 252-257. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbn018

Berardi, A., Smith, E. M., & Miller, W. C. (2021). Assistive technology use and unmet need in canada. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(8), 851-856. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1741703      

Björnsdóttir, K., & Traustadóttir, R. (2010). Stuck in the land of disability? The intersection of learning difficulties, class, gender and religion. Disability & Society, 25(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590903363340

Carlsson, G., Slaug, B., Schmidt, S. M., Norin, L., Ronchi, E., & Gefenaite, G. (2022). A scoping review of public building accessibility. Disability and Health Journal, 15(2), 101227. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101227

Casey, R. (2015). Disability and unmet health care needs in Canada: A longitudinal analysis. Disability and Health Journal, 8(2), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2014.09.010

Choi, R. (2021). Accessibility findings from the Canadian Survey on Disability, 2017. Canadian Survey on Disability Reports, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-654-X2021002. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2021002-eng.htm

Eisenberg, Y., Vanderbom, K. A., & Vasudevan, V. (2017). Does the built environment moderate the relationship between having a disability and lower levels of physical activity? A systematic review. Preventive Medicine,95, S75-S84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.07.019

Employment and Social Development Canada. (2022). Summary of guidance on accessibility plans. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/accessible-canada-regulations-guidance/accessibility-plans/summary-plans.html

Fernandez, C., Zallio, M., Berry, D., & McGrory, J. (2021). Towards a people-first engineering design approach. A comprehensive ontology for designing inclusive environments. Proceedings of the Design Society (2021). 1, 3179-3188. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.579

Forster, G. K., Aarø, L. E., Alme, M. N., Hansen, T., Nilsen, T. S., & Vedaa, Ø. (2023). Built environment accessibility and disability as predictors of well-being among older adults: A Norwegian cross-sectional study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105898

Grisé, E., Boisjoly, G., Maguire, M., & El-Geneidy, A. (2019). Elevating access: Comparing accessibility to jobs by public transport for individuals with and without a physical disability. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 125, 280-293. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.02.017

Grondin, C. (2016). A new survey measure of disability: The Disability Screening Questions (DSQ). Canadian Survey on Disability, 2012, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-654-X2016003 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2016003-eng.htm

Gupta, M., Abdolrahmani, A., Edwards, E., Cortez, M., Tumang, A., Majali, Y., Lazaga, M., Tarra, S., Patil, P., Kuber, R., & Branham, S. M. (2020). Towards more universal wayfinding technologies: Navigation preferences across disabilities. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376581

Hammel, J., Magasi, S., Heinemann, A., Gray, D. B., Stark, S., Kisala, P., Carlozzi, N. E., Tulsky, D., Garcia, S. F., & Hahn, E. A. (2015). Environmental barriers and supports to everyday participation: A qualitative insider perspective from people with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96(4), 578-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.12.008

Hébert, B.-P., Kevins, C., Mofidi, A., Morris, S., Simionescu, D., & Thicke, M. (2024). A demographic, employment and income profile of persons with disabilities aged 15 years and over in Canada, 2022. Reports on Disability and Accessibility in Canada, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-654-X2024001. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2024001-eng.htm

Levesque, M. (2020). Governance models for rural accessible transportation: insights from Atlantic Canada. Disability & Society, 37(4), 684-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1828044

Lindsay, S., Varahra, A., Ahmed, H., Abrahamson, S., Pulver, S., Primucci, M., & Wong, K. (2022). Exploring the relationships between race, ethnicity, and school and work outcomes among youth and young adults with disabilities: A scoping review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 44(25), 8110- 8129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.2001056

McDiarmid, C. (2021). Accessibility in federal sector organizations in Canada, 2021. Canadian Survey on Disability Reports, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-654-X2021001. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2021001-eng.htm

Norton, E. C., Dowd, B. E., & Maciejewski, M. L. (2018). Odds ratios—Current best practice and use. JAMA, 320(1), 84-85. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.6971

Pianosi, R., Presley, L., Buchanan, J., Lévesque, A., Savard, S.-A., & Lam, J. (2023). Canadian Survey on Disability, 2022: Concepts and Methods Guide. Reports on Disability and Accessibility in Canada, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-654-X2023004. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2023004-eng.htm

Rabinowitz, T. (2024). A profile of 2SLGBTQ+ persons with disabilities, 2022. Reports on Disability and Accessibility in Canada, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-654-X2024002. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2024002-eng.htm

Satariano, W. A., Kealey, M., Hubbard, A., Kurtovich, E., Ivey, S. L., Bayles, C. M., Hunter, R., & Prohaska, T. R. (2016). Mobility disability in older adults: At the intersection of people and places.The Gerontologist,56(3), 525-534. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu094

Sherman, J., & Sherman, S. (2013). Preventing mobility barriers to inclusion for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(4), 271. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12052

Shooshtari, S., Naghipur, S., & Zhang, J. (2012). Unmet healthcare and social services needs of older Canadian adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(2), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2012.00346.x

Statistics Canada. (2024). Table 13-10-0900-01 Barriers to accessibility for persons with disabilities aged 15 years and over, by disability severity, age group and gender [Data table]. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310090001

Sundar, V., Brucker, D. L., Pollack, M. A., & Chang, H. (2016). Community and social participation among adults with mobility impairments: A mixed methods study. Disability and Health Journal, 9(4), 682-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.05.006

Vitale Brovarone, E., & Cotella, G. (2020). Improving Rural Accessibility: A Multilayer Approach. Sustainability, 12(7), 2876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072876

Wee, J., & Lysaght, R. (2009). Factors affecting measures of activities and participation in persons with mobility impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(20), 1633-1642. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280902736346

White, D. K., Jette, A. M., Felson, D. T., Lavalley, M. P., Lewis, C. E., Torner, J. C., Nevitt, M. C., & Keysor, J. J. (2010). Are features of the neighborhood environment associated with disability in older adults? Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(8), 639-645. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638280903254547

Wray, D. (2024). "Sandwiched" between unpaid care for children and care-depending adults : A gender-based study. Spotlight on Canadians: Results from the General Social Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-652-X2024002. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2024002-eng.htm

Zallio, M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2021). Inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility in the built environment: A study of architectural design practice. Building and Environment, 206, 108352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108352

Zwicker, J., Zaresani, A., & Emery, J. C. H. (2017). Describing heterogeneity of unmet needs among adults with a developmental disability: An examination of the 2012 Canadian Survey on Disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 65, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.04.003