Discrimination against the disabled in Nepal isn’t always loud and cruel. Sometimes, it’s disguised as kindness. In Nepal, perceptions of disabled individuals frequently oscillate between two extremes: pity on the one hand and hostility on the other. Although these two positions give opposite superficial impressions, they share the same fundamental assumption that disabled persons are less competent, less self-sufficient, and less worthy of the same opportunities as everyone else.
Pity is the “nicer” face of the problem. Worse, pity justifies inaction as well as dependence. It frames PWDs (persons with disabilities) as fragile, helpless, and in need of constant charity. Society tends to glorify physical health and strength, a standard reinforced by movies, television, and other mass media. Within this framework, disabled individuals are often portrayed as unable to compete with the so-called ‘normal’ and are instead met with pity or prejudice. People speak on their behalf, make decisions for them, and celebrate “helping” as a personal virtue. The focus shifts to small, one-time individual acts, like giving a ride or carrying someone upstairs, instead of questioning why we don’t make those stairs accessible so that these people can use them on their own. This normalizes dependence and makes PWDs invisible in decision-making processes.
In Nepal, this shows up in many ways: parents hide their disabled children out of shame as well as fear of society, while friends often pity them and give help without being asked, ignoring their independence. Many disabled people are seen begging on the streets, which reinforces the idea that they are inherently helpless. Others are exploited by groups who sell the stories of their struggles to collect donations and make profits, taking away their dignity. They are denied roles in society because people assume they are incapable of doing so without ever asking them what they can or cannot do.
On the other extreme is abuse, outright discrimination, ignorance, and exclusion. Here, PWDs are seen as burdens: “too weak” to fight for their rights, “too unlucky” to suffer miserably, “too lazy” to earn a living, “too much trouble” to hire, “too slow” to include in group activities, “too unfit” to engage in social activities, and “too costly” to accommodate. In public, they are rejected, mocked, or told they don’t belong.
If you’re blind, shopping becomes a gamble. You can’t always see how much money you’re handing over, and most shopkeepers? They just pocket the extra and stay quiet. Universities often avoid admitting disabled students because they don’t want to deal with the financial and logistical burden of making their spaces accessible. The universities are unfriendly, hostile, and adverse to the disabled students. (Budhathoki, 2023) Public vehicles are either inaccessible or do not stop for disabled people, as accommodating them might be a nuisance and PWDs might not be able to pay their fares. Society expects disabled people to stay hidden at home and survive off handouts. They are frequently excluded from decision-making discussions because their demands are gauged as unnecessary or unworthy of consideration.
Pity and prejudice work together to maintain ableism (discrimination and social prejudice against physically or mentally disabled people). Pity creates a public image of PWDs as perpetual dependents, which then gives prejudice a convenient excuse to exclude them: “Why invest in accessibility if they won’t use it?” Prejudice, in turn, keeps PWDs out of workplaces, schools, and public life, so their absence reinforces pity’s illusion: “See, they don’t come here anyway.” Physical barriers and stigma reinforce each other, trapping persons with disabilities (PWDs) in cycles of exclusion.
This cycle is especially damaging in Nepal, where accessible infrastructure is rare and cultural narratives often link disability to an unfixable medical condition or a tragic karmic fate. (Aryal, R. P., & Aryal, B. (2022) If a place is inaccessible, disabled people naturally won’t go there, but instead of fixing the problem, society takes it as proof that accessibility isn’t needed. Both extremes allow the lack of accessibility to go unchallenged.
Real inclusion can’t happen when attitudes swing between overprotective “help” and open exclusion. Both come from the same wrong idea: that disabled people are outsiders who must adjust to an inaccessible world, instead of the world evolving to include them. Until Nepal sees pity and mistreatment as two sides of the same coin, accessibility will stay stuck as a charity project, not a basic human right just like everyone else’s.
About the Author: I’m a Master of Planning Studies student at Dalhousie University, currently working with the PEACH research unit to explore stigma around disability, inclusive planning, and accessible design, especially in resource-constrained settings like Nepal. I’m particularly passionate about understanding how ableism operates in everyday lives.
For many residents of Halifax living with disabilities, transportation is not just about getting from point A to B, it is about dignity, autonomy, and inclusion. Halifax Transit’s Access-A-Bus (AAB) program plays a crucial role in bridging that gap, offering door-to-door service for those unable to use conventional transit due to physical or cognitive disabilities (Halifax Transit, 2019).
Image showcasing Halifax Access-A-Bus vehicle demonstrating its wheelchair ramp in action (Halifax Regional Municipality, n.d.).
And yet, for many users, Halifax’s Access-A-Bus still feels like an afterthought. Some issues such as areas, long wait times for reservations, and inflexible scheduling, have left many eligible residents-especially those in remote areas or with unpredictable health needs feeling excluded or unable to rely on the system to meet their daily needs. As a Master of Planning Student and researcher with PEACH, I have been thinking a lot about how services like Access-A-Bus fit into broader visions of equity and inclusion in our cities.
What Works, and What Doesn’t
Access-A-Bus looks like an essential piece of infrastructure. It is designed to serve residents within 1,000 metres of Halifax Transit’s fixed-route network. For people who live within 1,000 metres of a Halifax Transit stop, and who qualify through a medical application process, the service can be a lifeline (Halifax Transit, 2019). The service operates from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m. daily and accommodates riders through both advance and same-day bookings. Eligibility is categorized as permanent, temporary, seasonal, or conditional, based on medical or mobility needs. Riders may travel with personal care attendants and companions, with fare structures aligned with Halifax Transit’s general pricing (Halifax Transit, 2019).
Image indicating a designated “Access-A-Bus Only” stop sign in Halifax (Dreamstime, 2023.).
But here’s the problem: many people don’t feel like it works well enough. The service is limited – geographically and operationally.
Firstly, because the service only operates within a certain boundary, people living in more suburban or rural parts of the city like Eastern Passage or Beaver Bank are often left out entirely. Expanding service to a 2,000-metre range could increase coverage by 21% and serve an additional 158 users, but would require an estimated $1.25 million more annually (Halifax Transit, 2023). Access-A-Bus (AAB) is currently funded by municipal grants and user fares. Each bus costs more than $100,000 annually to operate (Halifax Regional Municipality, 2016).
Secondly, booking is only available by phone, which many users, especially seniors, find difficult or inaccessible. Moreover, this system only accepts phone reservations for a limited period of time, which means that riders can be stuck on hold or miss their chance. This phone line is open only between 7am- 9pm on weekdays and 7am-5pm on weekends and holidays (Halifax Transit, 2019).
During these hours, lines are frequently jammed, and some users report waiting 30 to 45 minutes on hold only to find that “there’s nobody on the line (Jackie & Sally, 2025). These limitations create a high barrier to access, as those unable to call during these hours, or who have little left margin for error are likely to miss their chance to book entirely.
Thirdly, it has strict scheduling rules: Advance bookings are limited to five per day and must be made up to seven days ahead. Same-day bookings are only considered after waitlist clients, reducing spontaneity (Halifax Transit, 2019).
Finally, there are also harsh penalties for no-shows or late cancellations, even when users face legitimate health or logistical barriers. If a rider misses five trips in one month, they risk suspension, an approach that may disproportionately affect people with fluctuating health conditions (Halifax Transit, 2019).
Best Practice from Other Cities
This isn’t just a Halifax issue. Cities across Canada are grappling with how to deliver paratransit in a way that’s both financially sustainable and truly equitable.
Toronto: Wheel-Trans
The Wheel-Trans was founded in 1975, it offers full door-to-door service across Toronto and surrounding areas, accepted TTC fare (Wikipedia, 2025). Its 10-Year Strategy aligns with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), classifying users as permanent, temporary, or conditional, and aims to provide barrier-free travel (TTC, 2025).
Toronto’s Wheel-Trans has adopted a flexible “Family of Services” model. This means that a single trip might include a mix of paratransit and regular TTC routes – with trained staff helping users transfer between systems, thereby extending coverage without duplicating full trips (Toronto Transit Commission [TTC], 2021). Importantly, riders can also book trips and track vehicles through an app (TTC, 2021). A digital booking system, including HASTUS-OnDemand, allows riders to plan and manage trips independently.
Image showcasing Toronto’s Wheel-Trans fleet combines vans and contracted taxis to serve a wide geographic area. (Wikimedia Commons, 2009)
Vancouver: HandyDART (TransLink)
In Vancouver, HandyDART has taken steps to make its booking process more user-friendly, integrating with the city’s Compass Card and testing out online booking platforms (TransLink, 2022). Both systems are also actively co-designed with input from people who use them.
The TransLink system covers Metro Vancouver and beyond with door-to-door service and multi-modal integration (TransLink, 2025). Recently, it also piloted real-time ride tracking and online booking, giving users more control (TransLink, 2022), improving independence and reducing call wait times.
Image of Vancouver’s HandyDART (TransLink. n.d.).
Both systems actively engage riders in governance through user advisory committees and structured feedback channels. These systems demonstrate that combining technology, flexible service models, and user-centered governance can dramatically improve paratransit accessibility.
Planning for Better Access in Halifax
While Access-A-Bus is a vital lifeline, further innovations are still necessary:
First of all, it should expand the service area. Consideration should be given to flexible or “zone-based” boundaries, similar to how Vancouver’s HandyDART coordinates with other modes to reach less accessible areas. This would be particularly useful in neighbourhoods with poor sidewalk infrastructure or steep topography.
Next, the scheduling system needs to be modernized and upgraded. For example, Toronto’s Wheel-Trans app and Vancouver’s online booking pilot demonstrate how app-based, multilingual, and accessible platforms can reduce phone line congestion and increase rider independence, especially for users with visual, cognitive, or communication barriers.
Additionally, AAB could improve oversight and feedback Loops. Vancouver’s user advisory committees and public performance dashboards show how ongoing engagement can help services remain responsive to changing needs. Halifax’s Accessible Transportation Liaison Committee is a good starting point, but expanding it to include public dashboards, regular surveys, and co-design workshops could make it more impactful.
Furthmore, integrating AAB with fixed-route transit through planned hand-offs can reduce cost while improving mobility and autonomy for users. Like in Toronto, the “Family of Services” Model can be a good case.
Image showcasing a Halifax Transit pilot assisting a visually impaired rider at a stop ((Bousquet, 2023).
A PEACH Perspective
At the PEACH Research Unit, we explore how accessible infrastructure intersects. Without reliable paratransit, individuals may face barriers to employment, healthcare, and community participation. Access-A-Bus is more than a transit issue; it is a human rights issue. As Halifax moves toward its 2030 accessibility targets, services like Access-A-Bus must not only be available, they must be adaptive, equitable, and user-driven. We believe that equitable transportation must be both functional and inclusive, physically, socially, and technologically.
Conclusion
Access-A-Bus reflects the best intentions of inclusive planning, but it must evolve. True accessibility means not only being eligible for a ride, it means being empowered to live fully and freely. As Halifax continues its journey toward equity, let’s ensure transportation systems don’t just move people, they support them in thriving.
Halifax Regional Municipality. (2016, December 13). Public transit infrastructure funding applications, Access-A-Bus and Alderney Ferry Terminal pontoon advanced funding, and the approval of a sole source award for 15 vehicles from Overland Custom Coach Ltd (2007) [Council report]. Halifax Regional Council. https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/regional-council/161213rc1412.pdf
We often talk about public transit in terms of how frequently buses run, how late they arrive, or how many routes connect across the city. But there’s one part of the system that doesn’t get enough attention: the bus stops themselves.
In Halifax, many of our bus stops are missing basic infrastructure: there’s no shelter, no lighting, no seating, and sometimes not even enough sidewalk space. These small things add up and can make people feel unsafe, uncomfortable, or simply unwelcome while waiting for a bus. So, I decided to look closer at this issue and explore what small, affordable changes could improve the transit experience for people across the city.
1. Image showing bus stop 6106 on Barrington St., having high ridership with less space to and shelter. (Source: Author)
For the purpose of this study, I decided to take a deep dive into one of the busiest streets in Halifax- Barrington St. This street has around 30 bus stops and is a part of 15 bus routes, out of which four are the most frequent. Route 29 is one of the popular bus routes along this street. With so much foot traffic and frequent service, it made sense to focus my study here. But even with its high ridership, many of the stops along this corridor are poorly equipped.
To get a better understanding, I visited most of the stops along Barrington Street (the ones from the South End to North End area of Halifax along this Street, where the street is the busiest), spoke with around ten people at these bus stops, and conducted an analysis to see how infrastructure varied from stop to stop.
3. Image showing bus stops along Barrington Street (Source: Halifax Open Data)
What I Observed
During my analysis, I found that bus stops along this street and mostly across Halifax from general observation, tend to fall into two basic categories:
Sheltered stops: These have a shelter and some seating, but often lack lighting, emergency contact systems, safety, and user-friendly features.
Pole stops: These bus stops consist of just a transit sign on a pole, with no shelter or seating at all. These are sometimes present at high-ridership bus stops as well, and the lack of shelter and seating becomes an inconvenience for people when it’s raining, snowing, or even when the bus timings are delayed.
4. Image showing a bus stop with shelter (Google Street View)
5. Image showing a bus stop with pole (Google Street View)
Some of the busiest stops (stops receiving multiple bus routes) were also the most challenging. The following images 6, 7 and 8 showcase some of the problematic bus stops along Barrington Street. The issues observed at these stops are that they experience overcrowding at peak hours, with no shelters or protection against adverse weather conditions.
6. Image showing bus stop 6105: Barrington St. before Prince St. Bay (Source: Google Street View)
7. Image showing bus stop 6107: Barrington St. before George St. (Source: Google Street View)
8. Image showing bus stop 6088: Barrington St after Artz St. (Google Street View)
These stops also have insufficient lighting posing safety risks at night, as expressed by some transit users at these stops. User feedback also highlighted that due to this lack of lighting, buses tend to sometimes pass by the stops without stopping for the passengers.
In conversations with riders, a common theme came up: these stops didn’t feel welcoming. And for people who rely on transit (like seniors, people with accessibility needs, or those travelling in bad weather), this becomes more than just an inconvenience. The lack of certain features as mentioned earlier affects access, comfort, and safety, and leads to people sometimes hesitating to use public transit.
What the Data and Analysis Showed
Through the analysis and observations, I found that only half of the 30 stops on Barrington Street are sheltered. The rest are exposed, regardless of how many riders use them. There does not seem to be any logic or pattern behind which bus stops should be poles vs. sheltered. I also looked at winter operations and found that while Barrington is a priority-1 route for winter operations like snow clearing (which means snow clearing has to be done within 12 hours from the end of a declared event), that doesn’t help much if a stop is just a pole with nowhere to stand.
9. Image showing different types of bus stops along Barrington Street (Source: Author)
What Can Be Done?
Improving bus stop infrastructure doesn’t have to mean expensive, large-scale renovations. Small, thoughtful changes can make a big impact especially when rolled out gradually, starting with the most heavily used or vulnerable locations.
Here are a few practical solutions that I came across while exploring ideas and practices from around the world:
1. SOS Call Buttons Used in some places of Brampton, Canada, these allow people to quickly contact transit authorities in case of an emergency. They’re simple, effective, and can be added to both sheltered and pole stops.
10. Image showing SOS sign used in Brampton (INsauga.com)
2. Stop Signals In the Netherlands, riders can press a button to alert the driver that someone’s waiting. This could help avoid missed pickups in Halifax, especially at night or in bad weather. These can also be used at both sheltered as well as pole bus stops.
11. Image showing a stop signal for buses in the Netherlands
3. Motion-Sensored Lighting Lighting that turns on only when someone is nearby improves safety and saves energy. Many cities in the U.S. are already using solar-powered versions like the ASE G3-SC, and would be useful at sheltered and pole bus stops in Halifax.
12. Image showing a motion-sensored light at bus stop (Source: ASE)
4. Compact Shade & Seating For pole stops where space is limited, compact seating and shade structures- like SIMME Seats, can offer a big upgrade without taking up much room. These would be highly useful at pole stops, where space for seating is usually a constraint.
13. Image showing a Simme-Seat bus stop (Source: simmeseat.com)
While sheltered bus stops can benefit from some changes like ones highlighted earlier, they still at least have some shelter and seating. Pole bus stops, on the other hand, seem unwelcoming and inaccessible, due to the user-friendly and people-oriented features they lack. That’s why in addition to proposing additions/changes to the sheltered bus stops, I also decided to go a step further and design a prototype for pole bus stops, to make them more accessible, welcoming and user-friendly.
By bringing elements together, I created a simple prototype combining seating, shade, and space for lighting or emergency features. It’s compact, cost-effective, space-efficient and can be suitable for all seasons.
14. Image showing compact bus stop shelter and seating-prototype (Source: Author)
Moving Forward
Although bus stops are a small part of the transit experience, they do matter. They are where every journey begins and ends. There definitely are more things that can be done to make Halifax Transit a better experience for all, such as more reliable bus timings and schedules, live updates in case of last-minute changes etc. But improving accessibility, inclusivity and comfort at bus stops is also worth thinking about.
When we talk about accessibility in cities, the conversation often stops at the visible ramps, elevators, curb cuts, and tactile strips. But there is another side of accessibility that is less visible yet profoundly impactful: sensory accessibility. This is the kind of access that addresses how environments feel, sound, and stimulate the senses, a dimension that is often ignored in urban planning.
As a graduate planning student at Dalhousie University, I’ve worked on the impact of truck traffic on downtown Halifax during my first semester. What began as a logistics and mobility project gradually revealed something deeper after I joined PEACH Research lab – a pattern of urban inaccessibility rooted in sensory stressors. This shift in focus was sparked by observing how truck noise and movement affected everyday pedestrian experiences, especially for people with sensory sensitivities.
However, revisiting this work through the lens of accessibility planning reveals something deeper. The movement of heavy container trucks through core areas like Hollis Street and Lower Water Street is not just a traffic issue; it creates conditions that are overwhelming, disorienting, and unsafe for many residents.
Noise levels from diesel trucks can reach between 90 and 110 decibels (dB), which is far above safe hearing thresholds. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), exposure to noise above 85 dB can lead to hearing damage after prolonged exposure. But for individuals with autism, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sensory processing disorder, or other sensory sensitivities, even short-term exposure can trigger anxiety, confusion, and physical pain (CDC, 2022).
Image showcasing the difference between Normal Truck (on the left) and Electric Truck (on the right).
Accessibility planning is often framed around compliance with building codes or meeting minimum design standards. While these standards are an important starting point, they often fall short of addressing the full range of accessibility needs, particularly for neurodivergent individuals and those with sensory sensitivities. A truly accessible city must go beyond structural compliance to create environments that are navigable, understandable, and welcoming for everyone.
Sensory overload, an excessive amount of noise, light, smell, or movement can be disabling. In downtown Halifax, truck traffic compounds this overload. Beyond sound, the presence of large, moving vehicles adds visual and spatial unpredictability, while diesel emissions contribute to poor air quality, another sensory factor that affects breathing, focus, and comfort.
Halifax’s Integrated Mobility Plan (IMP) does include commitments to sustainability, active transportation, and public health, but sensory accessibility has yet to be centered within these goals. This gap in planning vision has direct consequences: when a person cannot walk safely down the street without feeling overwhelmed, that public space has failed them.
Lessons from the World: Best Practices in Sensory Urbanism
Cities around the world are beginning to realize that sensory accessibility is not an optional feature but a matter of equity and inclusion. Several leading examples show how it can be done.
1. Paris, France
Paris has implemented “quiet zones” known as Limited Traffic Zone (ZTL) near schools and hospitals, where heavy vehicle braking and idling are banned.
Image of various signage regarding ZTL areas in Paris. One sign depicted is the sign indicating when one is leaving a ZTL. The other sign depicted is the sign indicating a ZTL entrance after an intersection.
The city is experimenting with noise-sensitive traffic signals that adapt to decibel levels and alert drivers or alter flow. These measures aim to protect vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and people with anxiety disorders (City of Paris et al., 2020).
2. London, UK
The Greater London Authority has developed inclusive design standards that specifically address sensory barriers. These include using materials that dampen footstep echo in pedestrian tunnels, reducing visual clutter in public signage, and ensuring lighting is consistent and not over-stimulating. London has also developed guidance for developers on creating autism-friendly environments in public infrastructure (Smith et al., 2014).
Image of sculpture installed by organ of Corti in July 2011 in Carter Lane Gardens near St Paul’s Cathedral, London. The sculpture is a four-metre-tall installation that absorbed the City’s traffic noise and transformed it into music.
3. Melbourne, Australia
The city of Melbourne has piloted “sensory mapping” tools to assess which parts of the city are overstimulating or disorienting. These maps help identify noise hotspots, flashing lights, and high-traffic areas, allowing planners to redesign those spaces for accessibility. The initiative is co-designed with people who experience sensory challenges, giving real weight to lived experience in policymaking (Social Spaces: Designing Public Space with Data, n.d.)
4. Helsinki, Finland
Helsinki has invested in acoustic urbanism, including the installation of noise-absorbing pavements and plant buffers along busy streets. The city actively monitors street noise and incorporates it into planning decisions, treating noise as a public health issue rather than an aesthetic concern (Air Quality and Noise Abatement Plan (ILME) 2024–2029, n.d.)
Image of people sitting in a semi-shaded area provided by a “green wall” — a human-cultivated wall of vegetation in an urban environment — in Helsinki, Finland. Helsinki has adapted the Green Wall concept. The purpose of the green wall is to create an oasis with a pleasant soundscape and seating. The vegetation and the shade provided by the wall also offers a cooler place to sit down on a hot day. Most of the various plants are pollinator friendly.
5. Vancouver, Canada
Closer to home, Vancouver has embraced multimodal logistics to reduce truck volume in residential areas. Short-sea shipping routes, inland container terminals, and appointment-based port operations help minimize urban freight chaos. Electric truck infrastructure also plays a role in reducing street-level noise (Metro Vancouver, 2021)
Image of Seaspan ship in Vancouver harbour. Seaspan ferries provides commercial ferry service from Vancouver Island to the Lower Mainland.
These cities recognize that accessibility is not only about mobility but about comfort, safety, and autonomy in public space.
What Halifax Can Do
While the primary goal of my truck traffic study was to reduce downtown congestion, many of the proposed solutions serve accessibility goals as well. For example:
Electric trucks operate at 60–70 dB compared to diesel trucks’ 90–110 dB, drastically reducing noise pollution.
Terminal appointment systems reduce erratic truck movement and allow for more predictable traffic flows.
Image showcasing the ideal workflow of an Appointment System.
Cross-harbour ferry routes and rail shuttles reduce the number of trucks moving through sensitive areas like the downtown core
Image Showcasing the potential Cross-Harbour Ferry system at the South Terminal, Halifax.
But technical solutions are not enough. Halifax must integrate sensory accessibility audits into every planning process. Sidewalk design, street lighting, public seating, and even landscaping decisions should be evaluated through a sensory lens. Planners and engineers should receive training on sensory equity, just as they do on structural design or stormwater management.
Most importantly, the city must meaningfully involve people with disabilities, particularly those who experience the city differently because of how they hear, see, feel, or move through space. Lived experience is not just useful feedback; it is essential expertise.
The next time we talk about infrastructure, let’s remember that silence – intentional, gentle, designed silence is also infrastructure. A quiet street, where a child with autism can walk comfortably or a senior can hear their own thoughts, is just as vital as any new highway.
As we reimagine Halifax’s future, let us do so with accessibility, including sensory accessibility at the centre of our vision. Because when we design for those, most affected by urban inaccessibility, we design a better city for everyone.
City of Paris, Green Parks and Environment, Urban Ecology Agency, Eco Act, & Agence Latitude. (2020). An action plan for 2030 and an ambition for 2050 for a fairer and more inclusive city: Together for climate: Paris climate action plan towards a carbon neutral city, 100% renewable energies, resilient, fair and inclusive (2nd ed.). https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2020/11/23/257b26474ba3ba08ee02baa096f9c5dd.pdf
Hello everyone, happy October! As mentioned in our last post, we at PEACH have been hard at work on a number of projects, and we’re very excited to share an update with you today! Last week we hosted our research and community partners at a two-day workshop for our new NeighbourAble project. The NeighbourAble project is a collaborative effort to develop a tool that assesses the fit between housing and neighbourhood qualities and abilities of individuals with diverse needs and experiences – all through the lens of accessibility.
The PEACH research team and some of our partners!
On Day One, our research partners met to exchange and pool our knowledge, and to discuss and brainstorm the best possible way to go about developing the NeighbourAble tool. On Day Two, our community partners joined to overview the project and discussed the next step. Both days were fantastic opportunities to hear from and collaborate with experts in the fields of housing, aging, and accessibility, and we are so happy with the discussions and results of the workshop. It was so inspiring and exciting to hear from and collaborate with our partners as we begin this new project!
The Creative Process!
We want to extend a huge THANK YOU to our partners (salutations omitted): Atiya Mahmood (Simon Fraser University), Habib Chaudhury (Simon Fraser University), Kevin Ng (Rick Hansen Foundation), Oskar Jonsson (Lund University), Ren Thomas (Dalhousie University), Sherri Crane (Brightside Community Homes Foundation), Heather McCain (Live Educate Transform Society), Jenny Konkin (Whole Way House), Sonora Szoczei (Whole Way House), Kaitlyn Phillips (Independent Living Nova Scotia), and Adriane Salah (Affordable Housing Association of Nova Scotia)! We are so grateful to all of them for taking the time to participate in the workshop – both in-person and virtually – and for lending their passion and expertise to the beginning of this exciting new project! We’ll be sure to provide more updates on this blog as NeighbourAble progresses – we can’t wait to share more!
Happy Fall, everyone! This is a busy and exciting time of year for many, and it is no different for us here at PEACH. As the summer closes out and we enter a new season, we are hard at work on a number of exciting projects with our partners – we can’t wait to share more about them with you! We are also very excited to introduce the newest member of the PEACH team: Benjamin Kinsey has joined us as our new Project Coordinator! A Master of Divinity student and former Research Assistant at the Atlantic School of Theology here in Halifax, Ben combines years of research and academic experience with a lifelong passion for building more equitable, accessible, and healthy communities for all. Whether it be logistics, communications, or anything in between, Ben will be providing support to our team, and contributing to our new and ongoing projects. In the coming weeks and months ahead, Ben will also be sharing updates on PEACH and our various projects here to this blog – so stay tuned! We are thrilled to have Ben join us – welcome, Ben!
A journey of accessibility and heritage. By Yaba Osifo
A woman on a wheelchair with friends around her on the viewing deck with lighthouse in the background.
Peggy’s Cove is home to one of Canada’s most famous lighthouses, the Peggy’s Point Lighthouse, built in 1915 (Nova Scotia Tourism, 2024). With over 700,000 visitors annually, this iconic site holds significant importance for both Nova Scotians and visitors worldwide (Province of Nova Scotia, 2021). However, until recently, the site was largely inaccessible to persons with physical disabilities due to rocky paths, inaccessible washrooms, and a haphazard parking lot. In 2021, Develop Nova Scotia (now Build Nova Scotia) initiated a project to renovate the site. This included expanding the viewing deck for better accessibility, renovating the washrooms to include accessible stalls and automatic doors, adding parking, improving sidewalks, and implementing protections against shoreline erosion and rising sea levels (Build Nova Scotia, 2021). The viewing deck has sparked a debate between preserving heritage and making room for accessibility. As a planner with a physical disability my loyalties lie with the latter.
My visit to Peggy’s Cove
I’ve visited the Peggy’s Cove lighthouse twice and each time, I have had a pleasant experience. The viewing deck is spectacular, accommodating a wide range of abilities (young, old, mobility-impaired, parents with strollers, etc.), allowing everyone to experience the sensory delight of hearing the ocean waves, feeling the misty breeze, and being just a few metres away from the lighthouse itself. The spacious deck mitigates crowding, with several seats spread out evenly.
Another excellent feature of the deck is the presence of electrical outlets attached to the seats and exterior walls of the bathroom and information center. Most people don’t realize that having electrical outlets is an accessibility feature—just ask anyone with a motorized assistive aid.
A white electrical outlet on outdoor seating on the viewing deck.
Unfortunately, during both of my visits, these outlets did not have power, defeating their accessibility purpose. Working electrical outlets would enable users of power mobility devices to recharge while enjoying the view.
Accessible Washroom
The accessible washrooms also deserve praise. From entrance and exit doors with automatic push buttons, inclined vanities, and changing tables to emergency fall buttons, the washrooms far exceeded my expectations. The stalls have accessible push buttons that aid in locking the door and display color lights to indicate if the stall is vacant (green) or occupied (red).
Wall-mounted features next to toilet including toilet paper dispensers, grab bars, and an emergency help button.
Two buttons with green light indicating door is unlocked.
Bathroom interior with wall-mounted sink with leg room underneath, an adult-sized change table, and pushbuttons to open, close, lock, and unlock the door.
However, improvements could be made regarding the distance of the emergency button from the toilet and the height of the lock buttons. Consideration should be given to persons with limited arm movement who can’t stretch far enough to reach an average arm span.
Shortcomings
A significant part of visiting the lighthouse includes exploring the gift shop, dining at local spots, and strolling around to see the fishermen’s boats. Unfortunately, once you leave the viewing platform, accessibility features are hard to find in nearby establishments. While Build Nova Scotia did an excellent job ensuring accessibility on the viewing deck washrooms and parking lot, their efforts are undercut by the lack of accessible features in other nearby attractions.
During both visits, I sought respite in the gift shop, as it was the only place with a working electrical outlet to charge my wheelchair. While everyone else browsed, I was stuck in one spot with an outlet, having exhausted my wheelchair power on the slopes of the viewing deck. Navigating the narrow aisles was impossible in my wheelchair, and the lack of a lift to the second floor further limited my experience.
A interior of a shop with picture frames on the walls and other knick-knacks and a sign that says, gift shop upstairs.
Although my friends and family enjoyed browsing through the array of souvenirs, I couldn’t join them. It was frustrating to hear about the exciting items I couldn’t see due to the lack of an accessible path. Ensuring that all areas, including gift shops and dining establishments, are accessible would enhance the overall experience for all visitors.
In Summary
The renovation of Peggy’s Cove highlights some ongoing challenges in creating accessible spaces. Ensuring that persons of all abilities can partake in experiencing spaces, is not just a matter of the accessible features within the space itself, but also in how the space connects to other spaces. The enhanced viewing deck and accessible washrooms are steps in the right direction, demonstrating that spaces (historical or otherwise) can be made welcoming to everyone without compromising the value or experience of others.
Accessibility interventions must be approached holistically. Connectivity between different parts of the environment, such as the viewing platform, gift shop, dining establishments, and surrounding areas, is crucial. Without this interconnected approach, visitors with disabilities may still find significant barriers that prevent them from fully enjoying and appreciating the heritage site.
By prioritizing both preservation and accessibility, and by implementing comprehensive, well-connected accessibility solutions, we can ensure that everyone has the opportunity to experience and cherish the rich history and natural beauty of places like Peggy’s Cove. This inclusive approach enriches our collective experience of spaces and ensures that spaces can be enjoyed by all, now and for generations to come.
Yaba Osifo graduated with her Masters in Planning from Dalhousie University in May 2024. She has been performing research with the PEACH Research Unit since starting and completing her summer internship in 2023. Yaba is a passionate accessibility advocate, who looks forward to focusing on issues of health equity and accessibility to her work as a planner.
Photo of PEACH’s exhibitor booth at the CIP Navigation conference.
Last spring, our team attended the national Navigation conference of the Canadian Institute of Planners. There, PEACH researchers and students talked with planners, engineers, development officers, and other built environment professionals from across Canada about their knowledge of accessibility standards and collected valuable feedback for a recently completed research project.
About the project
The project, called Visualizing Accessibility Standards: A demonstration with CSA B651, tested how the addition of visual aids (e.g., diagrams, images, and reference videos) to the CSA B651 standards text may enhance its use by professionals. The Canadian Standards Association’s (CSA) B651: Accessible design for the built environment is a regulatory document that prescribes minimum and maximum measurements and design requirements to make indoor and outdoor spaces accessible to more people – specifically, people living with disabilities. They contain specifications for doors, walkways, stairs, bathroom facilities and more in rows and rows of technical and jargon-heavy text. Attendees of the conference were quick to confirm that text-heavy regulatory documents like this one can be challenging to engage with.
Two sample pages from the CSA B651 document.
What we heard
The subject matter of accessibility standards was often unfamiliar to the professionals we spoke to. While many felt they had some familiarity with accessibility needs, few had worked directly with accessibility standards before, as they were not yet required by their jurisdictions. When asked to read samples of the B651 text, many conference-goers appeared perplexed. Most had follow-up questions to ask our team, such as asking for additional details or context to fully understand the textual description. Overall, they were relieved to see the visual aids produced through the Visualizing Accessibility Standards research project, especially the three-dimensional (3D) models simulating accessible spaces, and videos featuring first-hand accounts of disability experiences.
Left: A 3D computer model of a traffic median with pedestrian pathway measurements. Right: A still image of a video of a grey-haired man sitting and speaking to the camera.
Some key findings
We collected 552 pieces of feedback on the prototype visuals produced by this project and found these two types of visual resources to be the most well-received by professional audiences. Most professionals were attracted to the 3D models of spaces because they were recognizable as real space without having the clutter of photographed spaces. They found it helpful when the graphics showed a design component from multiple angles in a realistic context, and with measurements clearly applied to the imagery.
Narrative videos also received the most positive comments overall. In these videos, people with lived experience of disability spoke about design features from the standards, explained how they are applied in daily life, and described how the features impact their own experience of disability. Professionals liked that these videos explained ‘why’ the standards prescribe what they do. They also said that the explanation provided in the narrative videos was valuable for motivating implementation of the standards and demonstrating how following (or not following) the standards directly affected people’s lives.
In short…
Professions such as architecture, planning, engineering, building development and managing, construction, and others, have a significant impact on the buildings and public spaces we all use daily. It is important to grow accessibility knowledge within these fields to realize more accessible communities. The feedback collected through this research indicates that people who are currently using accessibility standards can benefit from visual and audio-visual resources to support their understanding of accessibility needs and solutions, and that there is a gap to fill in bringing knowledge of accessibility standards to many built environment professionals. This research also further emphasized that bringing people with lived experience of disability into these professions as professionals themselves and/or as expert advisors, has the power to motivate and inform better decision-making towards accessibility.
PEACH researcher showing a narrative video to a conference attendee.
A three-part series looking at looking at accessible housing in Canada and Nova Scotia (3/3)
A row of maritime houses in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
For Nova Scotians with disabilities, gaining access to housing that is accessible and allows for an appropriate level of independence has long been met with challenges. While many Canadian provinces were in the process of deinstitutionalization (e.g., moving those with disabilities into community living arrangements) by the early 2000s, Nova Scotia continued to house a significant share of its disabled residents in institutional settings. In an attempt to rectify this situation, the Province put together a plan in 2013. Importantly, this “roadmap” included a commitment to deinstitutionalize the roughly 1,100 individuals living in institutional settings at the time through the expansion of community-based housing options and supports by 2023.
Now that 2023 is here and the country is in the middle of the 10-year long National Housing Strategy (NHS), it is as good a time as ever to look at how the accessible housing landscape in Nova Scotia has changed.
In its 2021 progress reporting on the Province’s commitment to deinstitutionalization, Nova Scotia’s Disability Rights Coalition identified a number of concerning findings. While the number of Nova Scotians with disabilities housed in institutional settings saw a modest decline to an estimated 900, it was found that no institutional facilities had yet to be closed. Further, it was found that the Province’s Disability Support Program waitlists for community-based housing options and/or supports had increased by 74% since 2013, which, it was argued, was indicative of the Province’s continued failure to implement strategies and investments that aim to better include individuals with disabilities in communities.
An orange and white graphic comparing the number of Nova Scotians with disabilities relocated from living in institutional settings between 2013-2021 (200) and the percentage of growth seen in the waitlist for community-based housing and/or supports in the same time period (increased 74%).
Naturally, the question arises of how Nova Scotia plans to meet the housing needs of its residents living with disabilities. Through Housing Nova Scotia (HNS) – the provincial agency responsible for providing Nova Scotians in need with affordable housing solutions – several smaller-scale programs are in place to provide individuals with disabilities and seniors with funds to modify their homes to meet changing needs. Larger-scale HNS programs whose primary aims are to build new affordable housing units are also concerned (though less directly) with addressing the Province’s the need for accessible housing. For projects funded through these programs, developers have the option of either (a) providing 1 in 20 barrier-free units, or (b) having all units comply with Nova Scotia Building Code adaptable housing requirements. Notably, there is currently no available data on the number of accessible units that have benefited/been built as a result of these HNS programs.
Housing Nova Scotia also manages the delivery of three programs affiliated with the NHS through bilateral cost-sharing programs with the federal government: the Nova Scotia Priorities Initiative, the Federal Community Housing Initiative, and the Canada-Nova Scotia Targeted Housing Benefit. In delivering these programs, HNS is required to create an action plan outlining housing targets set through consultation with the federal government will be met and report on progress every six months. In its most recent action plan, HNS does state that increasing the supply of accessible housing that is affordable is a priority, noting the high percentage of Nova Scotians living with a disability and the Province’s aging demographics. However, in terms of targets for accessible units, HNS’ action plan aims to build just 10 new accessible units for the 2022/23 year, and 90 by 2027/28.
Additionally, in its framing of accessible housing that is affordable as a need in Nova Scotia, it is important to note that the action plan makes no reference to the need to find suitable community-based options for the roughly 900 individuals currently housed in institutional settings, nor for the roughly 1,900 individuals currently on Disability Support Program waitlists. Further, there is no explanation for how the target of 90 newly constructed accessible units by 2027/28 was set, nor for whether this target remains appropriate.
A photo of the foot of a person using a wheelchair encountering a step at the bottom of a staircase.
How little housing outcomes have improved for Nova Scotians with disabilities since the Province’s commitment to deinstitutionalization and the operationalization of the NHS is extremely concerning, and highlights the urgent need for significant change at both the National and Provincial level.
In Nova Scotia, the development of a strategic action plan focused solely on addressing accessible housing need could be highly beneficial. At its core, this plan could focus on finding suitable housing accommodations for those living in institutional settings and on Disability Support Program waitlists, as well as on addressing the need to increase the stock of accessible housing units as the provincial population continues to age. Having HNS and the Department of Community Services (who administers the Disability Support Program) collaborate on the creation and implementation of such a plan would be crucial for the plans’ success, as both agencies have mutual interest and responsibility in meeting the Province’s accessible housing needs.
As this blog series has shown, there is still much work to be done in both Canada and Nova Scotia in the area of accessible housing. While various policies and programs have been launched to address the need for more accessible housing units, the targets that have been set (and means to achieve these targets) appear to be insufficient to adequately address current needs. Whether it is re-calibrating or hitting the reset button entirely, it is clear that the National Housing Strategy and provincial programs in Nova Scotia need to be overhauled if we are going to have any chance of improving housing outcomes for Canadians with disabilities on a large scale.
Office of the Fire Marshal. (2019). Adaptable Housing: Nova Scotia Building Code. Government of Nova Scotia. https://www.thespine.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/adaptable-housing.pdf
About the Author
John Gamey (MPlan) graduated from Dalhousie University’s Master of Planning program in May 2023. This blog series outlines some of the research he conducted in the area of accessible housing in Canada and Nova Scotia under the supervision of Dr. Mikiko Terashima.
A three-part series looking at accessible housing in Canada and Nova Scotia (2/3)
Made official in 2017, Canada’s National Housing Strategy (NHS) is a 10-year, $72 billion dollar plan comprised of various programs and funding streams that intend to “create a new generation of housing in Canada” that is “sustainable, accessible, mixed-income, and mixed-use”. A central goal the NHS is to address the housing crises being experienced in many cities and regions across Canada, which are largely characterized by significant shortages in affordable housing stock and increasing homelessness.
Since its inception, the NHS has aimed to improve housing outcomes for a number of “priority groups” that it classifies as vulnerable. Of these groups, several have housing needs that go beyond the traditional housing standards of affordability, adequacy, and suitability – often requiring that housing is accessible. NHS priority groups that may need accessible housing include people with physical disabilities, people with developmental disabilities, and seniors. At its outset, the NHS recognized that Canadians with disabilities face a host of difficulties in accessing housing that is not only affordable but appropriate for their needs, which it vowed to address by improving accessibility in housing units across the country.
A list of groups prioritized by the National Housing Strategy.
While this commitment to improving housing outcomes for Canadians with disabilities was welcomed news, important questions still loomed: how many accessible housing units were going to be built through NHS programming, and how? Would the NHS be able to significantly alleviate Canada’s need for accessible housing units?
In terms of targets for accessible housing units to be constructed, two significant numbers were put forward: the NHS would build 2,400 new housing units for Canadians with developmental disabilities and 12,000 new affordable units for seniors, both through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund. As of the December 2022 NHS Progress Report, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) reported that 845 new units for people with developmental disabilities are at the “commitment” stage, as are 5,925 new units for seniors. However, it is important to note that data pertaining to accessible and affordable units currently under construction or that have been successfully built as a result of the NHS has not yet been provided. Perhaps even more importantly, the relationship between the targets that were set and an identified need for accessible housing units is unclear.
Along with the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, the Rental Construction Financing Initiative and the Rapid Housing Initiative make up the three NHS programs receiving the highest levels of funding, all of which are focused on the construction, renewal, and repair of housing units. These three programs feature another way in which the NHS addresses Canada’s need for accessible housing: project accessibility requirements.
An orange and white graphic of residential units at the commitment stage for people with developmental disabilities (845) and units at the commitment stage for seniors (5,925), with an unknown number of units that have been built as a result of NHS programming for priority groups in need of accessible housing.
In short, these requirements aim to ensure that any project receiving funds through these programs must, to some extent, provide housing that can be considered accessible. For instance, the National Housing Co-Investment Fund gives developers the choice between (a) ensuring 20% of a project’s units are accessible and has barrier-free common areas, or (b) ensuring the entire project has full universal design. Similarly, the Rental Construction Financing Initiative (10%) and Rapid Housing Initiative (5%) require that a portion of units within a project are accessible. While thousands of units are being built, renewed, and repaired through these three programs, there is no reporting in any case as to whether these accessibility requirements are being met.
Together, limited progress reporting on targets for priority groups and the absence of reporting on program accessibility requirements leads observers to question the NHS’ ability to address Canada’s need for accessible housing. It would certainly be beneficial to know how many of the 15.9% (950,000+) of Canadians with disabilities found to be in core housing need in 2017 no longer classify as such as a result of NHS programming. This, however, is not yet known, and may not be until data from the 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability is released.
A graphic displaying the percentage of accessible units required by three Canadian funding/financing programs for residential development.
As the NHS passes the halfway point of its lifespan, it may be an appropriate time to reconsider how it has addressed the need for accessible housing to date. For starters, it would be beneficial if the targets that were set for priority groups in need of accessible housing were clearly tied to an identified need. Whether 2,400 new units for individuals with developmental disabilities and 12,000 new affordable units for seniors will make a significant dent in alleviating housing needs for either of these groups goes is not something that is addressed by the NHS. Undertaking a type of needs assessment for accessible housing that identifies how many accessible housing units are needed (and for which specific priority groups) could allow the NHS to reset its targets and re-calibrate its programs and initiatives to better meet the country’s need for accessible housing. In addition to setting better targets, the NHS could also benefit from improving its progress reporting. Going into further detail about how many accessible housing units have actually been built as a result of NHS programing and how this has alleviated needs could serve to enhance transparency and accountability within the NHS.
To continue this exploration of accessible housing in the age of the NHS, the next blog in this series will take a look at the situation in Nova Scotia – a province that has long needed to see progress made in the area of accessible housing.
Randle, J., & Thurston, Z. (2022). Housing Experiences in Canada: Persons with disabilities. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/46-28-0001/2021001/article/00011-eng.htm
About the Author
John Gamey (MPlan) graduated from Dalhousie University’s Master of Planning program in May 2023. This blog series outlines some of the research he conducted in the area of accessible housing in Canada and Nova Scotia under the supervision of Dr. Mikiko Terashima.
