Report of the CIB Expert Seminar on Building
Non-Handicapping Environments, Budapest 1991
Access to services and facilities in the Canadian Parks Service
Robert Fern, The Canadian Parks Service, Canada
Seminar Contents
Foreword
The Canadian Parks Service (CPS) administers one of the largest park systems
in the world. This park system consists of 34 national parks, over 80 major
national historic sites, 9 historic canals and 2 marine parks. Five new
parks should be added to the system within the next four years.
It is no easy task to make a park system which includes varied natural landscapes
and historic structures accessible to people who have physical, sensory
and mental disabilities. Ideally, all areas and programs should be accessible
to all people.
The Canadian Parks Service has recently made "accessibility" a
high priority with the result that many important changes have taken place.
However, it is recognized that total accessibility cannot be accomplished
because of the paramount need to preserve heritage values and natural landscapes
as well as for financial reasons. Therefore, alternatives acceptable to
persons who have disabilities and to those in the park system (and others
who support it) need to be found and implemented.
This paper will highlight some of these important changes, discuss how and
why they are taking place and will focus on processes and activities that
worked in the Canadian context. It must be emphasized, however, that circumstances
vary from country to country and what works in one may not work in another.
Hopefully, the experience gained in Canada will have some application in
other jurisdictions.
Background
CPS began working on access projects in the mid-1970s (about four years
before acceptable standards were approved). During this time special measures
were taken because of the need to protect the systems' heritage values.
Trial and error prevailed: it was a learning experience. Unfortunately,
this anachronism resulted in some projects not conforming to the new standards
once they were approved.
Only limited access was achieved when building codes were amended to include
accessibility standards. This was due primarily to the following factors:
- access standards were new and did not include directions on application
which caused some confusion,
- it was difficult to apply these standards to heritage buildings and
natural landscapes,
- research to support certain standards (i.e., for beaches, wharfs,
docks, etc.) had not been completed,
- comprehensive consultations with agencies that represent disabled
persons, as well as with disabled individuals, did not take place in the
development of the standards or during design and construction phases of
projects,
- the needs of persons with sensory disabilities (i.e., visual and hearing)
were not considered.
By the mid-1980s, as designers and architects became more familiar with
the standards and the needs of mobility impaired persons more buildings
and facilities were made accessible.
However, access to historic buildings still had to be defined and priorities
set. Also, other problems such as finance and issues relating to design
had to be overcome. To do this, the Canadian Parks Service developed and
is currently implementing "A Strategy and Action Plan for Access for
Disabled Persons". Many areas are covered in this strategy. These include:
- the setting of priorities and defining what access means to CPS,
- cooperation with agencies that represent disabled persons,
- staff training,
- the re-adjustment of capital funds,
- the integration of access into existing planning processes,
- examining the roles and responsibilities of volunteers and cooperating
associations,
- defining how access to historic structures can be achieved.
The Strategy emphasizes the need for persons who have hearing, visual and
mobility impairments to have equal and, where possible, integrated access
to park and site themes, recreational opportunities and essential services.
During the implementation of the Strategy, it was realized that many park
visitors, other than those who have disabilities, have benefited directly
from the new accessibility standards (i.e., a tactile exhibit for visually
impaired persons increases the understanding and enjoyment of the exhibit
for everyone; a captioned video for persons with hearing impairments benefits
seniors and persons who speak a language other than that used in the video;
and a trail made for mobility impaired persons benefits families who have
children in strollers, persons with heart ailments and seniors.)
The most important element of the access program has been the cooperative
efforts between CPS and the agencies that represent disabled persons. These
agencies work with CPS in a number of areas including the development of
training programs and the formulation of design solutions. Without this
interaction the program would not be so successful.
The most beneficial effect of this cooperation has been how these agencies
have "humanized" the access issue for park service employees.
When representatives of the agencies have been brought together with parks
service employees, the parks staff have gained an opportunity to understand
the issue first-hand, while the persons with disabilities have developed
a better understanding of the mandate of the parks service. This is an on-going
and valuable process. It is important to note that agency representatives
are well-versed with the situation before they meet with CPS employees.
This allows both parties to discuss the issues with a common understanding.
It is also advantageous to include a social element in such gatherings -
to encourage interchange in a more relaxed atmosphere (which also promotes
better understanding).
Before such a meeting took place, many parks service staff felt that persons
with disabilities would not understand or appreciate the conservation mandate
of CPS and that they would make unreasonable developmental demands (i.e.,
pave every trail to the top of every mountain). These misconceptions were
based on a lack of awareness and understanding of the needs and expectations
of disabled persons. It was soon evident that they, like everyone else,
want to see Canada's major heritage areas preserved and do not want any
more than the average Canadian.
The question that we, who work in the access area, must ask ourselves is
why do people like those of the park service have these pre-conceived ideas?
There are probably two major reasons. One is that people without disabilities
may have a fear of disabilities themselves. They are therefore nervous with
the issue which can sometimes lead to a general lack of understanding about
it. The second is that some employees may feel threatened by something they
do not understand and may believe that if access is provided, it will conflict
with their agency's (and their own) ideals.
For CPS the interaction has been meaningful. CPS considers the agencies
that represent disabled persons with which it works as important partners.
CPS management appreciates, and encourages further interaction between the
park service and these partner agencies.
It is also important to understand, though, that even when management supports
the access issue, some employees may still feel "threatened" (i.e.,
in the case of CPS, some exhibit designers and other individuals working
for the protection of heritage buildings). To overcome this, one can try
the same approach of bringing the two sides together - although some persons
may still remain unconvinced. At CPS, we found it advantageous to find a
professional "ally" (i.e., someone who understands and deals with
persons who feel threatened) to bring the access issue to the attention
of his/her peers. Once done, the two groups, along with the "ally",
were brought together to discuss the issue. It is important to approach
some professionals in this way, as they see one of their peers supporting
an issue that is a threat to them. This approach and a stroke of good fortune
(of finding the right "ally") worked well for CPS - especially
when the issue was brought to the attention of the designers.
It is also important to find out why a particular group feels threatened
and to deal with their feelings. Once again, using the exhibit designers
as an example, we found that many feared that their creativity would be
threatened if they designed everything to be accessible (i.e., all print
would have to be in black and white, in a certain size and in a certain
style, etc.) When the myths were successfully dealt with (i.e., that everything
does not have to be in black and white, etc.) the exhibit designers became
major supporters of the issue and see it as a way to improve their work
for the benefit of everyone.
CPS has now held two successful media and design workshop on access and
will be holding an expanded workshop in the future. Designers are currently
working on a number of pilot projects and the results will shape the way
information is given to the visiting public in the future.
Many building designers and architects also feel threatened by the access
issue - a major reason being that there are many "ugly ramps"
around to reinforce their misconceptions. Very few appear to have a good
understanding of the issue; and unfortunately, at this time, only one school
of architecture in Canada offers a course on the subject (some include it
in other limited areas). The result is that new architects have little understanding
of associated issues when they leave school (though schools of architecture
would argue the point).
Good examples of accessible architecture should also be promoted to heighten
awareness of the issue and to give it a more positive image. Some Canadian
provinces (i.e., Ontario and British Columbia) give annual awards to architects
who have produced good, accessible designs for buildings. More such programs
are needed so that architects will not only have poor examples to draw upon
when the access issue is discussed.
In CPS, architects are now consulting with representatives of agencies that
represent people with disabilities. This is proving to be a growing process
for both - the architects because they are becoming more familiar with access
issues and the representatives because they are becoming familiar with concerns
for building design.
It must be realized that not all agencies possess the expertise in every
area that an organization such as CPS requires. They, too, require sensitivity
in the areas requiring assistance. To help them obtain this expertise, CPS
established agreements with three of the leading agencies in Canada. There
is a small financial arrangement associated with these agreements.
Accomplishments
CPS has accomplished a great deal in the area of access in a very short
period of time (although CPS is the first to admit that there is more to
do). CPS now has an access plan for each national park and historic site
(118 plans) and is nearing the completion of year 1 for the implementation
of those plans. Improvements made during the year will benefit all three
major physical and sensory disability groups (i.e., captioning of all major
videos and the purchase of audio-listening devices for each park and site;
the development and use of tactile exhibits and signs; the construction
of more accessible trails and picnic and camping areas; the re-design and
retrofitting of buildings, theaters, washrooms, etc.).
The future
Things are looking good. Within three years, all major facilities, programs,
recreational opportunities and services will be accessible to all persons. All
staff will have received some degree of sensitivity training. Where direct access
cannot be provided, alternative methods will be offered. The result will be
improved services for everyone - not just persons with disabilities.
Budapest
CIB Report Contents | About
CIB