Urban accessibility in Moscow: new technologies to improve the city (experience of people with reduced mobility)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

National Research University - Higher School of Economics HSE Graduate School of Urbanism Laboratory for Experimental Urban Design `Shukhov Lab' Faculty of Urban and Regional Development

Urban Accessibility in Moscow: New Technologies to Improve the City Experience of People with Reduced Mobility

Master's Degree Final Project

in the field of study: Urban Development

Academic programme: Prototyping Future Cities

Academic Supervisor of Master Program: Vicente Guallart Final Project Supervisor: Alexandra Zapolskaya Student: Valeriya Cherekaeva

Moscow, 2020



Abstract

Action and policies in the USSR negatively affected social visibility of people with disabilities and caused segregation inside society. Actions of decision-makers were reflected in the urban planning of soviet cities; as a result, today's Russian cities are not fully accessible for people with reduced mobility (PRM). In the frame of this research, in-depth interviews were conducted in order to construct an understanding of the urban experience and collect data about current urban barriers. To analyse collected data grounded-theory methodology were used. The study showed that PRM experience physical, transportation, attitude, social, programmatic, regulation and negligence barriers. Based on the results of interviews, the urban analysis of Timiryazevskiy district of Moscow city was conducted, and an accessibility map was developed. The result of the study is the horizontal prototype of mobile map application, which based on the needs of PRM. The goal of the developed prototype is to help overcome existing urban barriers and to create a product which can help PRM navigate in the city.

Key words: urban accessibility, urban barriers, people with reduced mobility, right to the city



CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CRPD - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities CSV - Comma-Separated Values MEP - Maps for Easy Path

OESD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

POI - Points of Interests

PRM - People with Reduced Mobility

QGIS - Quantum Geographic Information System

WHO - World Health Organisation

UN - United Nations

UNICEF - United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund USSR - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Figure 1. Public transport at the Timiryazevskiy district

Figure 2. POI at the Timiryazevskiy district and natural frameworks

Figure 3. The example of accessible entrance in the Timiryazevskiy district

Figure 4. Example of not-accessible crossway due to tram rails

Figure 5. Example of non-accessible crossway due to a high threshold

Figure 6. Example of accessible pathway, but not possible to use due to cars

Figure 7. Example of non-accessible pathway due to the column in the middle of the path and not finished road

Figure 8. Collected accessibility data of the Timiryazevskiy district

Figure 9. Accessibility map of the Timiryazevskiy district

Figure 10. (a) Wireframe of the user registration process. (b) Mock-up of the registration process and example how the user will see their personal profile. (c) The process of uploading route and example of the result

Figure 11. (a) Wireframe of user interaction with application features. (b) The mock-up of "What's neat you” section

Figure 12. (a) Wireframe of user interaction with the review section and reporting mistakes.

Example from mock-up how the user can report a mistake about POI information 38

Figure 13. (a) Wireframe of user interaction with routes. (b) Wireframe of user interaction with the red location. (c) Mock-up of user interaction with red routes and process of reporting

mistakes. (d) Mock-up of user interaction with green routes

Figure 14. Wireframe of user interaction with public transportation

Figure 15. The process of logotype development for mobile application ABLE

Figure 16. The final version of logotype for the ABLE prototype

Figure 17. The example of the mission to users from a business

List of Tables

Table 1. Types of POI at the Timiryazevskiy district

Table 2. Criteria of accessibility of streets, public and semi-public spaces

Table 3. The list of identified categories during the interview analysis

Table 4. Example of collected data about streets to create the accessibility map

Table 5. The rank of levels in ABLE

Table 6. The system of points collection in ABLE



Chapter 1. Brief problem statement

In 2012 the Russian Federation ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD obligates countries to protect rights, equality and freedom of persons with disabilities. Article 9 of CRPD specifies that people with disabilities should have access to a physical environment, transportation, and "other facilities and services open or provide to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.”

CRPD is a step forward to urban accessibility for people with any disabilities; however, the policies of the USSR towards the rights of people with reduced abilities were reflected in the architecture and shaped Russian cities. Analyses of different social media sources, such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have shown that Moscow is not fully prepared to provide an accessible environment to all citizens.

According to the Official Web-page of Moscow Mayor (2018), more than 1 million people with disabilities live in the Russian capital, including people with visual, movement, mental and hearing disorders; it is nine per cent of the Moscow population. In the frame of this study, only people with reduced mobility (PRM) will be the focus as it is a broad group which includes persons in wheelchairs, with walkers, with canes, elderly, people with baby carriages and persons with temporary injuries which impact on mobility.

While Moscow urban environment is not fully prepared for PRM, in-depth interviews within this research also have shown a problem of information accessibility. Existing navigation services in Russia do not provide travel data for PRM such as accessible routes, availability of ramps and lift at public space, quality of road and other crucial factors which will be discussed further in the study. Therefore, PRM needs to plan a journey around the city by using random and not structured information sources to obtain an understanding of urban accessibility, while available information is not always realistic or updated.

Nowadays, a small number of projects were developed to fill an information gap for wheelchair users. For example, "Karta Dostupnosty” is a Russian project which provides information about places where wheelchair users can practice Paralympic sports. The project Maps for Easy Path (MEP) currently in the process of developing a mobile application for wheelchair users in Milan, Italy. An important example is Wheelmap Organisation (Germany) is the web mapping project where users can add their own points of interests (POI) and rate it as accessible, partly accessible and not accessible.

The current project aims to develop a prototype which will cover needs not only wheelchair users but also other people with reduced mobility in Moscow. The goal is to decrease urban segregation by constructing a mobile map application for PRM by using research results. The research study aims to answer the following question: What kind of application do PRM need to improve their experience and increase accessibility of the Timiryazevskiy district? The goal of the study is to construct the knowledge model needed by PRM to navigate the changing urban environment.

1.1 Project site

For the prototyping site, the Timiryazevskiy district was chosen; it is a heterogeneous urban environment and has active local authorities. The district is located in the Northern Administrative Okrug of Moscow. It covers 15 square kilometres and shares a boundary with nine other districts (Web page of Administration of the Timiryazevskiy district, n.d). The Timiryazevskiy is a mostly sleeping district; however, it provides several public spaces and essential services (Table 1); moreover, 4 square kilometres of the district are parks, forests and water bodies. The area is well connected with the centre by different types of public transport. Within the frame of the research, the administrative border was chosen over the vernacular border as decision-makers tend to think within an administrative district.



Table 1. Types of POI at the Timiryazevskiy district. The district provides several essential serves and public spaces-- data collected from the Web page of Administration of the Timiryazevskiy district, Google Maps and OpenStreetMap.

Type of building	Number in the district
Hospital for 1200 patients	1
Outpatient hospitals	3
Outpatient hospitals for children	1
Dispensaries	1
Women's consultations clinics	1
Dental clinics	2
Social service centers	1
Educational centres	4
Colleges	3
Universities	2
Theatres	1
Cinema	1
Public libraries	6
Additional education centres	2
Sport activities facilities	15
Shopping centres	11
Cafes and restaurants	20

1.2 Research study

This research starts with a literature review of a historical perspective of accessibility in Russia since the history of the issue accounts for some current urban barriers. To answer the research question and to achieve the goal of the project, the bottom-up approach should be used. Therefore, the qualitative research method should be applied: in-depth interviews with PRM, experts and business owners. According to data from interviews and literature review, the urban accessibility analysis of the chosen district was contacted. The generated accessibility map of the Timiryazevskiy district is a part of the prototype.

Project proposal

Considering the urban analysis of the Timiryazevskiy district and the results of qualitative research, a prototype of a mobile map application was developed. The initial aim of the project is to solve the problem of information availability about city accessibility. The goal of the application is to provide necessary information about city navigation for PRM, including accessible routes, information about public space accessibility, opportunity to update information and share personal experiences.

However, the platform has the potential to solve other issues: stigma and stereotypes about PRM, social and attitude barriers. Moreover, the platform has the potential to become a connection point between PRM and local authorities, which can lead to an improvement in the physical environment. The current project was inspired by the CityBench program in New York. During the program, older adults were suggesting where local authorities should put benches. The main goal of the program was to encourage older people to walk more around the city by providing for them benches to rest. Other target groups include people with mobility challenges and disabilities.

In the frame of this study, ABLE provides information about accessibility in the Timiryazevskiy district; nevertheless, further development of the project implies a larger scale as Moscow and Moscow Regions.



Chapter 2. Research study

Introduction

Independent movement is a fundamental human right; nevertheless, the urban environment does not always provide equal access for every person. Urban accessibility means the possibility of all individuals to take part in social life and have access to public spaces. As was mentioned by Zaporozhets (2016, p.3), urban is "...urban environment, with its considerable technological possibilities, social and cultural diversity, fears and assumptions, intensive mobility and rhythms of speed, creates special conditions for the emergence and functioning of digital technologies, as well as their use".

Scholars agree that nowadays, geographers understand space as socially produced (Iossifova et al., 2018; Warf & Arias, 2009). A city is a form of space which is made of architecture, ecology, historical background and people. Therefore, the question of urban accessibility should be explored as a complex phenomenon.

Firstly, in the frame of this project, the problem of city accessibility for PRM is explored through Lefebvre's and Harvey's concept Right to the City. Harvey (2008, p.23) described it as: "... far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city. It is, moreover, a common rather than an individual right since this transformation inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power to reshape the processes of urbanization." Right to the City is a democratic approach to urban planning, it is the right of humans to access and shape urban space, and it is a privilege to be heard.

Secondly, the socio-psychological aspect is to be taken into account. PRM can face discrimination along with physical barriers. Several studies suggest that accessibility for PRM is also about the social acceptance (Yazigi et al., 2015; Lid & Solvang, 2016; Nghosiyan & Motamedi, 2015). Moreover, as were concluded by the World Health Organisation (WHO) (2011), negative behaviour towards any disabilities can cause low self-esteem, reduction of social participation and cause mental health issues such as anxiety and depression.

Thirdly, it is crucial to understand the interconnection of factors which can impact urban accessibility. Shi (2012) argues that a city is a living organism in a certain sense: the city has metabolism and it evolves and adapts to the changing environment. Such development can be caused by legislation, new technologies or policy changes. For instance, urban accessibility for PRM can be explored through the Pathetic Dot Theory by Lawrence Lessig. The theory states that any phenomena or individual is regulated by four forces: law, social norms, market and architecture. For example, the law can represent legal regulations in Russian Federation towards PRM; social norms - acceptance of PRM in Russian and Moscow society; the market - economics benefits of urban accessibility or non-accessibility; and the architecture - technologies which can be used to solve accessibility problem or to create an additional barrier.

Finally, as was mentioned by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2019), people with disabilities experience a different kind of barriers in the urban environment. In consideration of it, seven types of barriers were discussed during the research:

Physical Barrier - human made or natural obstacles that block access for PRM, for example, steps, low road quality and narrow doors.

Transport barrier - lack of accessible public transportation.

Attitude Barrier - can appear when person is not aware of difficulties which PRM experience in an urban environment which cause misunderstanding, stereotyping and discrimination.

Social Barrier - is a result of the exclusion of people with disabilities from work, education, and social life due to physical or mental differences. For example, a study in America showed that 35.5 per cent of people with disabilities were employed, compared to 76.5 per cent of people without disabilities having a stable job (Institute on Disability, 2018).

Programmatic Barrier - lack of effective delivery of public health.

Regulation Barrier (not in CDC classification) - situations when a violation or following the rules in the city environment cause physical barriers.

Negligence Barrier (not in CDC classification) - temporary barriers which appear due to changing of the physical environment (for example, construction site) or due to regulation barriers (for example, cars in sidewalks). They could have been avoided if the needs of PRM has not been neglected.

Literature review

How policies of USSR towards people with disabilities caused physical barriers for PRM in Russia.

As was discussed before, PRM is a broad group, they experience different barriers in an urban environment. However, the history of physical barriers in Russia can be explored through the policies of the USSR toward people with disabilities. Actions of decision-makers were reflected in society and therefore, in the urban environment. As a result, the physical barrier has an impact on PRM.

Disabilities in the USSR were defined via work capacity, which was connected with the ability to participate in the community; therefore, inability to cooperate in the community caused the isolation; this also can be seen towards older people (Hoge, 2015; Naberushkina, 2011). According to Dale (2013), the Soviet Union was removing marginal groups, and people with disabilities became part of marginals. After World War II, the number of people with physical disabilities increased; however, Stalin desired to inhibit any information which can harm the image of The Great Victory. As a result, people with disabilities were placed to care houses; this action made a group invisible and was the first step towards social barriers (Yarskaya-Smirnova & Romanov, 2008).

A study by Johnson et.al., (2007) claims that many Soviet children with disabilities were also placed in special institutions; parents were pushed by doctors and other authorities to relinquish guardianship of their children. Children with different kinds of disabilities were segregated from society; moreover, their education was not as good as an educational program for children without disabilities; this caused a barrier to receive higher education after school. By that, Soviet Union policies created a social barrier for people with disabilities. Social barrier caused exclusion from society, and disabilities became covered with stereotypes.

After Stalin's reign, the position of people with disabilities in Soviet Russia was not recovered. Several sources mentioned that during the Olympic games in Moscow in 1980, the Soviet representative said that there were no disabled in the USSR (Phillips, 2009; Wiedlack & Neufeld, 2016; Fefelov, 1986). The study by Shimolina (2015) claims that in the Soviet Union there was no such category of citizens as "people with disabilities”; therefore, people with s pecial needs were not considered in society, law and infrastructure. Soviet action and policies affected social visibility of people who were differently-abled, and it had an influence on urban environment and city planning: if the USSR did not have people with disabilities, there was no need to consider their needs while planning the city.

Nevertheless, the current situation in Russia is different: in 2008, the Russian Federation signed the CRPD and ratified it in 2012. To provide accessibility of the physical environment, transportation, information and services the Accessible Environment stare program were developed; since 2011 it has been working on removing barriers in priority objects and services for people with disability (Demyanova, 2015). However, people with disabilities, including wheelchair users still experience barriers in an urban environment (Shimolina, 2015); at the moment segregation is happening due to physical barriers of the urban environment (Naberushkina, 2011).

An important step in Russia was the 2014 Winter Paralympics in Sochi. However, social media sources show, that event unsheathe discrimination of disabilities in Russia due to lack of ramps, working lifts, universal design of the urban environment and opportunity to leave home (Kavkaz Uzel, 2013; DW, 2014; CBS, 2014; Huffpost, 2014; ABC, 2014). Nevertheless, Winter Paralympics was a step to remove stereotypes about people with disabilities, including wheelchair users, which is a crucial step for the country and further development of the urban environment.

Importance of urban accessibility for PRM

Urban accessibility plays a vital role in life quality for every citizen, not only for PRM. According to the United Nations (UN) report (2018), 55 per cent of the world population lives in cities; however, by the mid-century level of urban population expected to increase up to 68 per cent. The quality of the urban environment is a significant factor for future cities, and different indexes were developed to measure the quality of life in the city: City Prosperity Initiative (UNESCAP), Better Life Index (OESD), City Index (Russia). The indexes commonly consider equality, infrastructure development, quality of buildings and accessibility of the environment.

Due to a different kind of barriers in an urban environment, people with disabilities at a high risk of social exclusion, which could impact on income level, availability of education, health and activity status (Finnish Disability Forum report, 2003). Moreover, physical and attitude barriers can affect the accessibility of essential services for differently-abled people and their families. Urban accessibility provides opportunities for people in a wheelchair to be part of society, to work, to get an education and to remove the stigma which was created over decades.

According to the WHO (2007), the world is rapidly ageing; by 2050, 22 per cent of the population will be people aged 60 and over; to compare, in 2006 it was 11 per cent. Cities play a vital role in life quality of elderly; a study by Bowering (2018) concluded that elderly people are constantly overcoming "micro barriers” such as ramps which are too steep, thresholds and heavy doors. The exclusion from the city is making the ageing process not simple. To extend the life of elderly citizens and reduce the risk of mental health issues, city should provide an opportunity for active social life (Hirvensalo et al., 2007); moreover, cities should introduce "active ageing” which requires an accessible physical environment.

Finally, studies show that number of stereotypes and stigmas around parenting creates attitude and social barriers in an urban environment (Battle, 2013; Lilius, 2015; Hendriati & Okvitawanli, 2019). There is a lack of research about baby carriages and urban barriers; nevertheless, public and semi-public space can help to reduce social pressure on parents. For example, breastfeeding is an intimate but essential process; if cities and public spaces could provide places for feeding it could decrease stress level for mothers while they are outside (UNICEF, n.d). Additionally, the introduction of the child-friendly concept to the city can help parents as spaces will be prepared for children activities (Aji, 2016; UNICEF, 2006).

As studies show, accessibility can impact on the mental and physical health of PRM. Accessible and universal designs of the urban environment can help to consider the needs of every group and create cities for everyone. To conclude, urban accessibility is vital for PRM as much as to other citizens.

2.1 Research Design and Methods

Data collection: Interviews

The research aims to explore urban barriers, which affect PRM, in order to develop the project which can help in overcoming existing issues. To build a knowledge base and collect non-numerical data of the accessibility problems, the qualitative research methods were used. Following the phenomenological perspective, the lifeworld of research subjects was in the focus of attention. The in-depth semi-structured interview suited this goal. As one of the leading practitioners of the method, Kvale (1996) argues that qualitative interview fixes attention on understanding personal feelings and points of views before giving scientific explanation to phenomena.

Agreeably, surveys can provide a wide range of participants and greater data; however, the depth of information is crucial for this research. For that reason, a semi-structured interview method was chosen. A semi-structured interview uses open-ended questions which allow a new topic to be brought during the interviews (Adams, 2015). The advantage of this type of interview structure is detailed information about PRM experience and also new details which were not considered at the start of research; the disadvantage of this structure is the amount of time required to analyse transcriptions.

To gain different views on accessibility problem, in-depth interviews were conducted with PRM, local business owners and experts. The collected data include overall fifteen interviews in six groups: three interviews with local businesses, four interviews with people in wheelchairs, three interviews with people who use baby carriages, two interviews with experts (one of them wheelchair user), two interview with elderly and one interview with a person who experienced limited mobility due to leg injury.

To find the participants for an interview, a snowball sampling method was used. Snowball technique is an example of a nonprobability method of sampling; such method involves samples which is reachable for a researcher (Naderifar et al., 2017). The main limitation of the snowball method is that not everyone has an equal chance to become a participant of the study; if compared with the random sampling, which is an example of probability method. However, this study focuses on a narrow group of people, which makes the snowball method acceptable. In simple words, as a first step, one potential subject of the group was found, and then via connections, other participants also were invited to the study.

The requirements to groups were varied: Business should locate close or at the Timiryazevskiy district, the year of opening and type of building is not crucial in the frame of the study; PRM should live in Moscow for at least five years, and preferably in the Timiryazevskiy district or neighbourhood district; experts should have a background in city planning, urban accessibility or new technologies.

Face-to-face and online interviews were conducted during the current research. A face-to- face interview is a traditional method to gather data for the social study, the main advantage of such method is non-verbal cues that help to interpret verbal information correctly; moreover, during face- to-face interviews researcher has more control over ambience (Deakin & Wakefield, 2013). Online, or in this case Skype interview, provides an opportunity to collect data and not depend on outside factors; however, some potential participants might be excluded, as Skype interviews require internet connection, software and hardware. Nevertheless, Denscombe (2010) argued that quality of results gained through online interviews is not different from the data collected with traditional ways; and Deakin & Wakefield (2013) believes that Skype interviews have a chance to become new "gold - standard”.

All interviews were conducted in the Russian language, but to analyse it within this research data was translated into English. According to the rules of research ethics, before the actual interview, participants were informed about the research topic and aim of the study. Participants agreed for an interview to be recorded and used at the current research with keeping anonymity and confidentiality. Timing of the interviews was varying between 1 and 2 hours. The topics covered during the interviews can be found in Appendix A; the transcription of the one chosen interview can be found in Appendix B.

Data collection: Urban analysis of the Timiryazevskiy district & initial results Urban analysis in this research was done in two stages. The first step was a general urban analysis of several districts to find one which satisfies the majority of criteria: a variety of public transport options; close location to the city centre or to Moscow's Third Transport Ring; availability of natural frameworks; different elements of everyday life. These criteria are essential as the prototype was aimed to cover one district; therefore, it was crucial to find a site which is a combination of the sleeping district but also has POI and different ways to reach the area. As a result, the Timiryazevskiy district was chosen.

The first step of urban data collection showed that Timiryazevskiy district provides developed infrastructure of public transportation: buses, trams, metro, trains and Moscow Central Cycle station (Figure 1); the district provides several POI, including essential services, educational centres, places for leisure and consumption (Figure 2); also, district provide green areas (Figure 2).



Figure 1. Public transport at the Timiryazevskiy district. The district provides a variety of transport options: buses, trams, metro and Moscow Metro Cycle. The train line and separates the district inside, and separate from other districts--the data taken from Open Street Map.

The second stage of urban research was aimed to identify and map physical barriers in the Timiryazevskiy district according to accessibility criteria which were developed after interviews analysis and literature review (Lid & Solvang, 2016; Koenig, 1980; Szmaglinski et al., 2018; Church & Marston, 2003). The area can be accessible or not accessible, as results of the interview showed that PRM in Moscow consider the partly-accessible environment as not accessible; criteria for urban accessibility is presented in Table 2.



Figure 2. POI at the Timiryazevskiy district and natural frameworks. The district has forest area and parks, overall, 27 per cent of the area is covered with greenery--waterbodies in the district cover 1.5 per cent of total area. POI is located all around the district and includes a variety of public and semi-public spaces. The data are taken from Open Street Map.

Table 2. Criteria of accessibility of streets, public and semi-public spaces.

Pathway & Crossing	Yes - 0 points No - 1 point
Low road quality (for example with bumps and holes, not covered tram rails)
Threshold more than 7 cm
More than 1 step
Inclined path
Permanent object in the middle of the road (column, lantern, construction site etc.) and less than 90 cm from both sides of the object
Width of the road less than 90 cm
Accessibility of transportation stops	Yes - 0 points No - 1 point
Metro & Moscow Central Cycle Stations
The station does not have a lift
The station has stairs without a ramp, or ramp angle steeper than 1:12 for independent use
Doors narrower than 60cm
Bus, Tram & Trolleybus Station
Stairs/threshold (more than 7 cm) on the way to stop
Difference between the level of stop and accessible transport
Spaces	Yes - 0 points No - 1 point
The entrance to public and semi-public spaces
Entrance narrower than 60cm
Threshold more than 7 cm
The entrance has stairs without ramp, lifts or Inclined platform lift; OR ramp angle steeper than 1:12 for independent use
Not enough space for moving on a wheelchair or with baby carriage in the entrance area
More than 1 step (if place have a ramp as well answer NO to this criteria)
Entrance door heavy and hard to open (if space have no door answer NO to this criteria)
Entrance do not have a bell to ask stuff to help

These criteria weredeveloped based on a literature review and interviews with PRM. The order of criteria is based on how crucial factor is. If at least one criterion in Bold gets 0 points, that is mean that area or space not accessible. The score of the place accessibility is calculating according to presented criteria: for example, the entrance should get four first points (criteria in Bold) in order to be accessible, others criteria improving the experience of PRM but not as crucial. Nevertheless, further quantitative research is needed to evaluate the level of importance of each criterion.

First, the district was tentatively explored and photographed by the researcher in order to do a preliminary assessment. Secondly and most importantly it was thoroughly evaluated using the data gathered from online sources: Open Street Map, Yandex Map Editor, Google Street View, social media (Facebook & Instagram). Particularly, Google Street View was used; a virtual trip around the district helped to build a basic understanding of urban accessibility. For example, in Figure 3 the entrance to the bank can be seen: entrance width around 65 cm or more; it has an acceptable angle of ramp; from given point of view there enough space for moving on a wheelchair; but bell for asking help cannot be found; also it is impossible to evaluate heaviness of the door. Therefore, according to developed criteria of accessibility entrance got 5 points out of 7, which means that the place is accessible.

Figure 3. The example of accessible entrance in the Timiryazevskiy district.

According to Table 2 entrance got 5 points out of 7 and it satisfies essential criteria: entrance wider than 60 cm; availability of well-angled ramp, no thresholds and enough space to move on a wheelchair and with a baby carriage. As additional criteria entrance does not have more than 1 step; but the entrance does not provide bell for help, and via online research it is impossible to evaluate heaviness of the door.

The example of a pathway presented in Figure 4: pathway does not have thresholds; however, tram rails can be seen, which can be unsafe as wheelchair and baby carriages can be stuck and cause dangerous situations; therefore, this crossing is an example of a physical barrier. Another example of the physical barrier is shown in Figure 5: the overall quality of crossing is acceptable; however, the threshold can be seen, according to the photo it around 15 cm. Such barrier can be impossible to cross without external help. Moreover, the construction site on the right can be an example of a negligence barrier.

Figure 4. Example of not-accessible crossway due to tram rails. In order to make crossway safe for PRM, it should be covered with a rubber top.

Figure 5. Example of non-accessible crossway due to a high threshold. Moreover, the area has a construction site which potentially can provide accessible routes through; otherwise, it is an example of a negligence barrier.



Figure 6 represents the accessible pathway; however, temporary objects, in the current case are the cars, creates a narrow path where people in a wheelchair or with baby carriages might find hard to pass. According to current urban research, this situation is common; it can be suggested that it is an example of the regulation and negligence barriers.

Figure 6. Example of accessible pathway, but not possible to use due to cars. The conflict between cars and pedestrians (including PRM) commonly seen in the Timiryazevskiy district via Google Street View.

The photo data in Google Street View were collected in 2018 and 2019, yet as an urban environment tends to develop, not all panoramas and photos reflect current urban conditions. For example, in Figure 7 the column is located in the middle of the sidewalk, also after a certain point, the concrete road stopped. However, the communication with local people in social media showed that the sidewalk now is different, it is all made of concrete; but an opinion about column are distinct, as some locals believe it was moved, and others remember that column to locate at the same place as in Figure 7.



Figure 7. Example of non-accessible pathway due to the column in the middle of the path and not finished road. However, this place also an example that Google Street View information needed to be checked as local people claim it now has a path.

To conclude, the online urban analysis provided the possibility to develop a basic accessibility map of the district and identify the form of barriers for PRM in the Timiryazevskiy district. This method has a huge potential in crowdsource research, allowing to assess Moscow accessibility according to common criteria without being physically in the place.

2.2 Data analysis

To analyse data which were collected during in-depth interviews, grounded theory coding techniques were used. Suggested by classical sociologist Glaser and Strauss (1967), it can be now founded in a wide range of research from health care to research on agile technologies in organisations, including urban planning (Jayakody et al., 2017). Grounded theory is a systematic and flexible methodology, and it is especially appropriate when phenomena are not fully studied; the goal of grounded theory is to generate theories according to collected data (Chun Tie et al., 2019; Sbaraini et at., 2011). In the frame of this study, grounded theory coding techniques were needed to identify problems which PRM experience in the Moscow urban environment and to discover the topics which were not predicted at the start of research. The results of grounded theory coding techniques are a bridge between raw interviews data and the concept of the prototype and its specifications.

The data, collected in the interviews was categorised by assigning codes and generalizing them by comparison; grounded theory code is a word that "symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data" (Saldana, 2009, p.3). Initial coding can be described as general phrases which summarise the particular part of transcription. Focused code is the second stage of analysis, which helps to make a decision which initial codes can be used to categorise the data (Charmaz, 2006). Finally, categorising identifies relationships in focused coding; it helps to compare the results of different interviews (Glaser, 1978). The example of grounded theory analysis can be found in Appendix B; the list of identified categories can be found in Table 3.

Table 3. The list of identified categories during the interview analysis. Not all categories were possible to reflect in the prototype. However, the results of the in-depth interviews can be used for further studies.

List of identified categories
Accessible toilets	New technologies
Accessibility map	Non-independence
Accessibility of essential services	Personal transportation
Activities in the city	Perception of urban environment
Attitude barrier	Physical barriers
Buildings accessibility	Programmatic Barrier
Climate impact	Public transportation
Direct discrimination	Public spaces
Equality	Regulation Barrier
Help from outside	Right to the city
Important urban elements	Social barrier
Right to the Information	Social projects
Inclusion in the city	Stereotypes
Independence in the city	Stigma
Indirect discrimination	Transport barrier
Mental health	Negligence Barriers
Workers of services and disabilities	“Trouble-maker”
Urban accessibility	Visibility of PRM
Work

Table 4. The table is representing an example of collected data about streets to create the accessibility map. The values 2 mean that place is accessible; value 1 - urban element is not accessible; value 0 - means that data about accessibility is not available.

Urban analysis of online data was based on accessibility criteria (Table 2); the examples of initial analysis illustrated in the previous section. Elements of the urban environment in the Timiryazevskiy district were analysed and evaluated to create an accessibility map. In Table 4 shown the example of final data which were used to create the map in QGIS. The coordinates are representing the location of element and value status of it: value "0" means that information about space is not available, which means that either data not exist or it is impossible to evaluate without field research; value "1" means that street is not accessible and value "2" means that street is accessible for PRM. Then point data about streets were mapped in QGIS and reshaped into lines (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Collected accessibility data of the Timiryazevskiy district. Map present 84 points which were explored during online research.

2.3 Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research

Due to the external conditions imposed by the self-isolation regime, the research was an opportunity to test more of the online methods. They proved to be efficient and with huge potential for crowdsourcing action research.

Skype interviews were chosen over face-to-face interviews in eleven of the fifteen conducted interviews. However, online interview potentially excludes a group of participants, especially older adults; additionally, the problems associated with sound and internet connection had an impact on the data. For further studies, it is advised to compare city experience of manual wheelchair users and people on electric wheelchairs. Also, it can be informative to organise focus group practice, as a discussion about urban accessibility between PRM potentially can bring new arguments, problems and solutions. Interviews provided crucial information which stimulated the development of urban accessibility criteria (Table 2) and prototype (Chapter 3. Project Proposal); however, for further studies, advised to perform qualitative research with broader sampling and quantitative research, as criteria of accessibility might have various levels of importance.

Urban analysis of the Timiryazevskiy district was mostly conducted online. The limitations of this approach are the lack of credibility of data; hence, the interview with locals are crucial. Moreover, not all streets or POI photos are available via online maps, also due to quality of photos not all problems of the district were possible to notice, and it was challenging to overcome mistakes in measuring city elements.

For further studies, it is advised to conduct field observation of the urban environment as well as a go-along method. The go-along method or "walking interviews” would be particularly relevant since it provides an opportunity to physically measure important city elements, like thresholds, angle of ramps or size of doors at the entrance; moreover, it gives the possibility to evaluate the quality of sidewalks and observe the interaction of PRM with the city (Kusenbach, 2003). Due to external factors, this method couldn't have been done; however, it is highly recommended for any further research on the issue, especially for urban research.

Results and Discussion

According to interviews analysis, different PRM groups experience various barriers in an urban environment. The elder adults discussed physical, programmatic, transport and negligence barriers. As participant #13 mentioned physical barriers can cause programm atic barriers: "After a heart attack I needed to go to the health centre, but now I cannot easily cross five stairs, I did not realise they have it... so I do not expect anything from streets, even near the hospital, it is impossible to move, even health care not accessible.” Another participant #14 from the elderly group also mentioned that stairs make the metro non-accessible: "I stopped us the metro as I get older, because of stairs. Instead, I use a taxi, my grandson paying for it. However, I like the met ro; it is fast.” A negligence barrier in combination with physical barrier also create a problem for an elderly group: ".threshold is tall, of course, I go around the car, but then I cannot return to the sidewalk, some car drivers get angry as they cannot go around me”, concluded participant #13.

The participants, who use with baby carriages, mentioned experiencing physical, regulation and transport barriers; however, as a parent, participants also discussed the attitude barrier. The attitude barrier usually was faced in public spaces due to activity or loudness of the child, as participant #6 describe: "We were at the museum and baby started to cry, the museum worker started to tell me to go away, what I forget here with small baby.” Parents mentioned that they face a common stereotype in society: parents should stay at home until the child does not grow up; such stereotypes influence on urban accessibility. However, participants understand that loudness of children can negatively impact on people around, so they try to avoid not child-friendly spaces. Participant #7 discussed his experience with children exhibition: the gallery was not allowed to enter with baby carriages, and parent was supposed to carry a child and all needed belongings by hands: ". if one child maybe it is possible, but we have three.” The example shows that places which were supposed to be child-friendly were not considered the needs of parents. After Participant #7 made the situation public, the gallery changed policies. Example with the gallery illustrates that social pressure can influence on regulation barriers.

Physical barriers such as stairs, high thresholds and steep ramps make the urban environment less accessible for people with baby carriages. Participant #5 stated that baby-carriages influences on the perception of the city: ". the routes which seemed as acc essible, now seem like one big barrier.” The interview with participant #11, who experienced temporary leg injury, also showed that reduced mobility influenced the understanding of the city: "We were looking for places with lifts or without stairs. However, the most annoying thing is if you are on the wrong side of the road and there is only an underground passage which has only stairs.”

The in-depth interviews with wheelchair users showed that they experience more urban barriers than other groups: physical, attitude, social, regulation, transport, programmatic and negligence barriers. The most common physical barrier are steep ramps, stairs, passages (underground and overground), narrow doors, low road quality, not enough space for movement and high thresholds. Surprisingly, overground passages with lifts also consider as a physical barrier; the reason is that lifts do not work or person in wheelchair should call and wait for staff with keys: "Imagine during winter wait for somebody with the key from the lift, and they even not always come....” as participant #3 mentioned. A physical barrier can be a reason for the transport barrier; for example, a transportation stop with a threshold or a metro station with stairs. As participant #2 told: "I needed to go down to the metro again, but the manager of the station went away and took the key [from the lift]. People were angry about the staff, and two young men helped me with a wheelchair.” The situation with keys from lifts also c an be an example of the regulation barrier. However, overground transport, according to the interviews, is mostly accessible.

Physical barriers make wheelchair users dependent on others; this feeling was described as uncomfortable and disturbing. "Everyone wants to go shopping alone, have a walk, but lack of an accessible environment. when you ask somebody all the time, it is different feelings”, as participant #3 concluded. Moreover, physical barriers cause questions of belonging to the city, especially this topic was significant to participants #4 and #2: "Such roads are unappropriated, it is my city as well,

have lived here all my life and cannot move around the city. For whom this city, who did it?”

Barriers have an impact on emotions and mental health of participants who use wheelchairs; barriers influence the perception of the city. Interestingly, participants notice that physical barriers at semi-public and public spaces were becoming less crucial in the situation when the staff of the place were friendly and willing to help. Nevertheless, stigma and stereotypes around wheelchair users still exist. Participant #12 shared a story: "I was in the metro, two girls helped me with the stairs, in the wagon an old lady saw me and gave money. I told her that I do not need it. I am not poor.” For wheelchair users, it is important to be equal: ". they [people without disorders] feel uncom fortable to be near you not because you in a wheelchair, but because they are healthy, they feel sorry.” However, equality can be reached when stereotypes and stigma are removed.

Visibility of the group is another topic which was commonly discussed. Participants who started using a wheelchair after injuries noticed that before the injury, they rarely saw other wheelchair users outside. Transition to a new way of life was mentally hard, as participants saw themselves via common stereotypes. As participants #1 noticed: "Before I got the injury, I only saw people with disabilities asking money. Now I know that disable who have a home just stay at home, as the city not accessible”. Participant #1 also shared a story: "We offer to organise the event for local wheelchair users as gratefulness for allowing us to use their city for our activities, but the mayor said, "we do not have a disable people”. We arrived and there many people in a wheelchair, but for him, they not exist.”

Programmatic barriers are another crucial element which also has an impact on health. The main issue which was discussed is the lack of accessibility of health centres and hospitals. Participant #2 shared story: women's consultation, there only two stairs and ramp, but ramp for

the baby-carriages not for a wheelchair. So, I need to get a medical certificate from the gynaecologist for the sanatorium, and I cannot enter.” Participant #1 also discussed the lack of accessibility to loc al health centres and mentioned that hospitals should have wide doors and accessible toilets.

Finally, during the interviews, the problem of information accessibility was discussed. Participants explore accessibility information in a variety of ways: photos of entrances and streets in Yandex and Google; video of bloggers; information from workers or place visitors; and photos from Instagram. However, as interviews showed, each method has limitations: workers or visitors of a place might not notice the physical barrier and photos do not always reflect the current condition of a place. Participant #3 commented: “when I went to the bank, I di d not know if it was accessible or not. I checked the photo of the entrance in YandexMap, it seemed accessible, but it had one big step which I did not notice.”

Interviews with business showed that business owners are ready to make space accessible, however, it is vital to understand if it is going to benefit business: “I would like to make cafe accessible, but it costs money. Moreover, if I will invest money into accessibility, is it going to be profitable for business, that is a question.” Participant #9 also stated: “I think our place is accessible, we never had a visitor in a wheelchair, but mothers with baby carriages come often. Maybe if a wheelchair user will come and say what he needs, it will be useful.” Participant #1 from wheelchair users group also noticed: “It is because when they [business owners] do not see wheelchair user, they do not understand problems and do not care. Neverth eless, when they witness struggles of real wheelchair users, they see that person cannot get in, the attitude is completely different. Alternatively, maybe they also think that a disabled person is poor, so why create space for them.” Nevertheless, participants who own business acted friendly towards people in wheelchair. As participant #8 claimed: “I would like to see a visitor in a wheelchair, our staff trained to help.” Moreover, the discussion about ABLE showed that business owners see this kind of application as a way of advertisement; and business would participate in the process of routes creation or other activities.

...