1997 Acta Structilia Vol 4 No 1 Recreational pursuits of Wheelchair users: Overcoming time-space limitations GOH Wilson, L Kok & PS Hattingh Summary Wheelchair users are individuals with unique and specific needs in terms of recreation. In general, people overcome obstacles by making choices, thus establishing a certain pattern of activi­ties. For wheelchair users this is not so easy: they cannot always overcome time-space limitations imposed upon them by a hos­tile environment which prevents them from making appropriate choices. Keywords: Wheelchair users, time-space limitations. DEELNAME AAN REKREASIE-AKTIWITEITE DEUR RYSTOELGEBRUIKERS: HOE OM DIE RUIMTE-TYD-BEPERKINGS TE BOWE TE KOM Opsomming Rystoelgebruikers is individue, elk met 'n eie unieke behoefte in terme van ontspanning. Oor die algemeen oorkom mense struikelblokke deur middel van besluitneming, dit wil se, om buitemuurse aktiwiteite te beplan en deur te voer. Vir die rystoel­gebruiker is die saak nie so eenvoudig nie. 'n Onvriendelike omgewing maak dit vir hulle uiters moeilik om sulke besluite te kan neem. Die beskikbaarheid van vervoer, vrye toegang tot sportfasiliteite en mobiliteit binne sulke sentrums, is voorvereistes vir deelname aan rekreasie-aktiwiteite. Sleutelwoorde: Rystoelgebruikers, ruimte-tyd-beperkings. Dr GDH Wilson, M A (University of Potchefstroom) D Phil (UP) MSS (UOFS) Ms L Kok, M A (UP) Prof PS Hattingh, MA (Witwatersrand) D Phil et Litt (UNISA) All from the Department of Geography at the University of Pretoria Wilson, Kok & Hattingh / Pursuits of Wheelchair Users T here is general recognition of the_ benefits that par­ ticipation in recreation holds for disabled persons (Shivers & Holis, 1975; Vermeer, 1987; Schleien & Ray, 1988). What Stein (1986: 49) calls their 'right to recreation', is however, often impaired by the limitations imposed by environmental factors (Van Zijderveld, 1987). When cer­ tain obstacles in the environment limit the space that they can utilize, limitations are imposed upon their time as well, since they need time to overcome these obstacles. Con­sequently the time-space environments that disabled per­sons can use b�come so restricted that they have very lit­tle time in which to participate in recreational activities outside their homes. They often have to spend their free time in isolation. For the purposes of this paper, the term disability is used as defined by Goldenson et al. (1978): any chronic physiologi­ cal or mental inability caused by injury, illness or innate de­ fect. For the term recreation the definition of Neumeyer (1949: 22) is still valid, although it was formulated nearly five decades ago: "An activity pursued during leisure, either individual or col­ lective, that is free and pleasurable, having its own imme­ diate appeal, not impelled by any immediate necessity." In this paper the term recreation is used synonymous with 'leisure', where 'leisure' refers to surplus time or to a state of mind, in other words, the free use of free time. All sport ac­ tivities are included in the term recreation. The availability of transport, free access to places of recrea­ tion and mobility within the spaces are prerequisites to fa­ cilitate the participation in recreation of wheelchair users (Laus, 1977, quoted by Schleien & Ray, 1988: 1 OJ. Any re­ striction of the independent movement of a wheelchair user minimizes their community participation. This paper is based on research done during the period 1990 to 1993 on the recreation patterns of wheelchair users in Greater Pre­ toria, an area that includes Pretoria, Akasia, Atteridgeville, 32 1997 Acta Structilia Vol 4 No 1 Centurion, Eersterust, Laudium, Mamelodi and Soshanguve - hereafter referred to as Pretoria. Answers to two questions were sought: 1. To what extent are wheelchair users limited in their use of time and space during their recreation? 2. What are the restrictions that impede the participa- tion of wheelchair users in recreational activities? The following data gathering techniques were used in order to identify, from a time-space perspective the role played by time and space in the recreation patterns of wheelchair users: 1) structured questionnaires, completed by 170 wheel­ chair users in Pretoria; 2) structured interviews, conducted with 37 owners or managers of recreation facilities in Pretoria; 3) in addition, 42 of the respondents (from 1 and 2) were interviewed to elucidate and explain some of the findings; and 4) finally, one of the authors undertook both an excur­ sion in a wheelchair through the streets of Pretoria and to various recreation facilities to experience in person what wheelchair users have to face. Wheelchair users are individuals with unique and specific needs in terms of recreation. In general, people overcome obstacles by making choices, thus establishing a certain pattern of activities. For wheelchair users this is not so easy: they cannot always overcome time-space limitations im­ posed upon them by a hostile environment which prevents them from making appropriate choices. The study employed Hagerstrand's principles of time­ geography which emphasize the existence of limitations that can influence personal choice. His principles formed the basis of an activity pattern with relation to recreation as embodied Fairhurst's (1992) model (Figure I). 33 Wilson, Kok & Hattingh / Pursuits of Wheelchair Users Figure 1: LIMITATIONS OF TIME AND SPACE Operational milieu Source: Fairhurst, 1992 TIME Suitability t SPACE Opportunity External Internal Hagerstrand (Parkes & Thrift, 1980) identified three types of limitations, namely, ( 1) efficiency (within the limits of the in­ dividual's capabilities); (2) coupling (where and for as long as social interaction is needed); and (3) authoritative limita­ tions (through regulations). Action within a specific space is possible only if time is suitable and space offers an opportu­ nity for action. Time-geography The concept of time-geography aims to develop a model of community where limitations on behaviour (activities) can be formulated in physical terms, that is in terms of lo­ cation in space and in time (Parkes & Thrift, 1980). These writers emphasize the role played by time, space, choices and limitations in an understanding of human behaviour and thus provides a valuable framework within which wheelchair users' recreation in available time and space can be studied. The approach is used to evaluate the physical boundaries of time and space as they conflict with the intended recreation activities of wheelchair users. The choices made by such users in terms of recreation are dictated, far more than is usually the case, by these limita­ tions. For instance, they might decide - to spend their lei­ sure time at home not because they particularly want to, 34 c.> (11 MOTIVATION CHOICE RESULT � � � 1:hJMiUH1H !TIME appropriateness! 1. Physiological needs, e.g. health 2. Need for protectioo, e.g. safety 3. Social needs, e.g. �oosh� 4. Need for a good sett-image 5. Self-actuaizatioo development of individual poteotial 1 CapabUities constrarns :��iHlty -time -money • transport 2 Cou�ing constraints ·COlllllilliOn 3Authority constrailts - legal !SPATIAL opportunity! Subsequent choices are determined by previous experience - ::0zm )> C") ::0 ::0mm en J> -I -I::0 0 C") z ::!a <-nm :;Em :I: Z m m ::o Zc: -I enm ::0 en Wilson, Kok & Hattingh / Pursuits of Wheelchair Users but because they have so few options to go anywhere else. Personal preferences of wheelchair users Figure 1 contains the components motivation and choice, culminating in an activity pattern. Chapin ( 197 4) main­ tains that human action consists of three components: motivation, choice and results. All were introduced into Fairhurst's model, and from it was developed another model (Figure 2) that illustrates how choices that a wheel­ chair user makes in relation to recreation come about and how the outcome of these choices is determined. Human action is motivated by basic needs, their partici­ pation in recreational activities is motivated by the extent to which these needs are met. Personal preferences also play a role, but is often of less importance as the choices of wheelchair users are influenced by what they can do rather than by what they want to do. Limited recreation activities are often not the result of the wheelchair user's disability, but is caused by the failure of the time-space environment to provide for free movements of wheelchair users. Constraints of participation experienced by wheelchair users Participation in recreation activities do not follow the mere availability of recreation facilities as a matter of course. In this regard Mercer (1980: 34) remarked: "Even if the facility for engaging in a special activity exists, indi­ viduals may still not participate either because they do not know if th�opportunity is there or because they do not have the transport, are physical-handicapped, are too poor or are prevented through other reasons." Mercer ( 1980) stressed the importance from a planning point of view to know what people do not do and why people do not take part in certain activities. Important constraints of the participation by wheelchair users in recreation activi­ ties were identified from the following questions: ( 1) reasons why wheelchair users do not frequent certain recreation facilities: (2) reasons why wheelchair users do not go on holiday; (3) reasons why they do not take part in sport; and 36 1997 Acta Structilia Vol 4 No 1 (4) reasons why they do not attend sport events as spec­ tators. These reasons constitute a number of constraints, which we will now discuss. General accessibility Ingram (1971: 101) defines accessibility as " ... the inherent characteristic (or advantage) of a place with respect to overcoming some form of spatially operating source of friction (for example time and/or distance)". Accessibility has two major components: the mobility of an individual or the individual's capability to move about, and the characteristics of the available facility. Breheny (1978) sees the urban area as a pool of unequally distributed re­ sources or opportunities whereto people have various de­ grees of access. To identify the constraints on wheelchair users in their pursuit of recreation outside the home envi­ ronment, accessibility is evaluated in terms of constraints that influence choices according to the time-geography approach by Hagerstrand (Parkes & Thrift, 1980). These constraints are the limitations of capability, coupling and authorities (Fig. 2). Limitations of capability Several factors affect the capability of wheelchair users to participate in recreation activities: time, physical accessi­bility, finances and transport (Fig. 2). Time According to Tuan (1974: 216) people are " ... more con­ strained by time than by the curbs that space may im­ pose". To establish the extent of the constraint of time, re­ spondents were questioned about the time they have available for recreation. Although wheelchair users are just as busy as other people, it seems as if, in general, they do have sufficient free time for recreation. A lack of time as reason why they do not take part in recreation was cited by only 11,5% of respondents: only 4,5% of those who do not go on holiday; and by 19% for not taking part in sport. 37 Wilson, Kok & Hattingh / Pursuits of Wheelchair Users Figure 3: RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY CERTAIN FACTORS ,r----tt-------1 • Very lmpoftanl 80 • Very lmpoltlnl JO Cl Very Important a, 60 � 50-------------Ht---fti - � 40......at-----=------.t------+t---ttt � 30 a, a.. 20 10 0 Source: Kole, 1994 3 4 5 6 7 Constraints 1 Bridging obsta�les 2 Looking for parking 3 Planning beforehand 4 Dependent on transport 5 Inconsiderate public 6 Journey to recreation venue 7 Climbing in and out of a vehicle Although they have sufficient free time for recreation, the utilization of this free time for recrea­tion can be severely restricted by several factors (Fig. 3). The figure shows that most of their free time is taken up by attempts to overcome obstacles in the way of their recrea­tion participation, or by finding a convenient parking place at the recreation facility. Their dependence on others necessitates careful planning to co-ordinate the recreation activities of wheelchair users with the available time of their helpers. It is significant that time is not a restrictive factor where wheelchair users can help themselves, but only when they do have to depend on others. Physical accessibility Recreation space can only provide an opportunity for recreation participation if it is accessible to wheelchair us­ ers. Even one step, says Kennedy et al. (1987: 68) can de­ prive wheelchair users of their independent access to a facility. Table 1 lists the obstacles experienced by respon­ dents at recreation facilities: the four major obstacles all have to do with accessibility, with stairs being the single most hampering factor in the recreational pursuits of a wheelchair user. 38 1997 Acta Structilia Vol 4 No 1 TABLE 1: OBSTACLES EXPERIENCED BY WHEELCHAIR USERS AT RECREATION FACILITIES Percentaae (n = 156) Obstacles Very Important Important Unimportant Stairs 84.4 7,1 8,4 Lack of Lifts 70,8 11,7 17,5 Turnstiles 55,2 29,2 15,6 Narrow doors / passages 55,2 29,2 15,6 Cramped rooms 50,6 28,6 20,8 Uneven surfaces 49.4 30,5 20,1 Inaccessible auto banks 48,7 26,6 24,7 High counters 42,2 33,1 24,7 lnacccesslble phone booths 39,0 22,0 39,0 lnconsid�rate public 27,3 24,7 48,0 Finances The financial means of wheelchair users varies as for other people. Yet they can often do less with their discretional income available for leisure than other people. because they have to pay more for facilities with adequate ac"' cess. for instance, for more expensive holiday accommo­ dation in hotels or flats rather than cheaper camping holi­ days. Transport In modem urban society transport is of utmost importance for any person who wishes to lead an independent life. For the wheelchair user this is even more so. Cohen (quoted in The Star. 1991: 9) calls mobility " ... the lcey to in­ dependence for the disabled". 39 Wilson, Kok & Hattingh / Pursuits of Wheelchair Users Unfortunately, public transport systems are seldom accessible to wheelchair users. Buses, trains and even aeroplanes are designed with the non-disabled user in mind. Because of this,Jack of suitable transport is given as a major reason why wheelchair users do not go on holi­ day (52,3%), do not participate in sport (21%) or do not at­ tend sport events as spectators (23,2%). The following specific transport related problems were ex­ perienced by the respondents: a lack of parking place (48,7 %); transport only certain times available (22,5%); high costs (20,5%); wheelchair doesn't fit in (16%); have to book well in advance (11,5%); irregular hours (10,9%); not close to their homes (10,9%); .a long time to wait or travel (9,6%). Only 27% indicated that they do not experience transport problems. In Table 2 the various problems are summarized in relation to the different modes of transport. Parking None ExpensJve TABLE 2: PROBLEMS WITH TRANSPORT EXPERIENCED BY WHEELCHAIR USERS Percentage (n = 156) Own Assisted Tax! Minibus for the Public transport by others handicapped transport 100,0 0 0 0 0 54,8 35,7 4,8 4,8 0 35,5 48,4 9,7 0 0 Extended waiting / Travellng time 6,7 33,3 46,8 6,7 6,7 Booking In advance 5,6 77,8 0 11,1 0 Wheelchair 4,0 62,0 32,0 12,0 0 doesn't flt Limited 0 74,3 14,3 11,4 0 availabillty Infrequent 0 64,7 29,4 5,9 0 Not close 0 47,0 52,9 0 0 40 Other 0 0 6,5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 Acta Structilia Vol 4 No 1 Coupling limitations Factors in the environment often prevent wheelchair users from participating at the same level as others in recrea­ tion activities, unless they are assisted by somebody. Their opportunities for recreation is thus determined by the pe­ riod and time thot they can be coupled to someone else. Whenever they wish to visit a recreation facility, they need a companion to help with transport and help to over­ come obstacles that restrict access. These coupling limita­ tions cause 45,5% of the respondents who do not go on holiday to give the lack of a companion as main reason, and 28% give the same reason why they do not attend sport events. Next we will pay attention to the time-space environ­ ments that would facilitate the participation of wheelchair users in recreation activities outside the home. Respon­ dents were asked if they would participate more in rec­ reation if ( 1 J the recreation environment was more convenient; (2) better transport was available; and (3) a companion was available. The question was not structured and the responses were spontaneous. The answers are summarised in Table 3. TABLE 3: MOTIVATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHEELCHAIR USERS FOR PARTICIPATING IN RECREATION OUTSIDE THE HOME ENVIRONMENT SPECIFIC Percentage (n = 156) CIRCUMSTANCES Yes No More convenient recreation environment 74,7 25,3 Companion more frequently available 58,4. 41,6 Better transport available 44,8 55,2 41 Wilson, Kok & Hattingh / Pursuits of Wheelchair Users To create the circumstances favourable to recreation participation by wheelchair users, the help of authorities is needed. The ignorance about the needs of wheelchair users of some authorities, and their failure to fulfil these needs create restrictions (Kennedy et al., 1987) that con­ stitute limitations in terms of authority. Public sector constraints The biggest breakthrough for wheelchair users in South Af­ rica came in April 1986 when The National Building Regu­ lations for the first time made provision for the accessibility· of buildings. Ramps, accessible toilet facilities, slip-free sur­ faces, convenient parking areas, etcetera, were for the first time prescribed (Joubert, 1990). These requirements should also be taken into account when older buildings are refurbished. Yet wheelchair users find that these regu­ lations are not always adhered to and that both the pub­ lic sector and the private sector are not alwdys informed about the needs of wheelchair users. A remark made by Krauss (1983: 286) could also refer to the fate of wheelchair users in Pretoria: "It is clearly evident ... that great numbers of disabled per­ sons are not receiving the benefits of our nation's recrea­ tion resources. The severity of their disabilities, architect baniers, nonacceptance by society and slowness of the recreation profession to adjust its programs and facilities to their needs all have contributed to a serious lack of op­ portunity." Conclusion This study highlights the plight of wheelchair users in rela­ tion to their recreation needs. For too long they had been stuck away in their homes, mostly because time-space constraints prevented them from emerging and mixing in the recreation environment of the rest of society. It is only in the last few years that authorities and the public be­ came increasingly aware of their specific needs, and that attempts have been made to meet these needs. Every­ one who has the freedom of movement should accept responsibility to create an accessible recreation environ- 42 1997 Acta Structilia Vol 4 No 1 ment for wheelchair users, because, in the words of Kessler (1953: 251J, " ... most of us are ordinary people seek­ing extraordinary destinies. The physical disabled are ex­traordinary in that they seek but an ordinary destiny". References BREHENY, M.J. 1978. The measurement of spatial opportunity in strategic planning. Regional Studies, 12, pp. 463-479. CHAPIN, F.S. 1974. Human Activity Patterns in City. NewYork: John Wiley. FAIRHURST, U.J. 1992. A Time-Space Perspective on the Daily Lives of Economically Active Single Mothers: South African Urban Study. Unpublished D.Phil thesis. Pretoria: University of Preto­ ria. GOLDENSON, R.M. DUNHAM, J.R. & DUNHAM, c.s. 1978. Disability and Rehabilitation Handbook. NewYork: McGrawHill. INGRAM, D.R.- 1971. The concept of accessibility: a search for an operational form. Regional Studies, 5, pp. 101-107. JOUBERT, I. 1990. Die aanpassing van gestremde persona in die gemeenskap. Welsynsfokus, 25(1), pp. 19-25. KENNEDY, D.W., AUSTIN, D.R. & SMITH, R.W. 1987. Special Recreation Opportunities for People with Disabilities. New York: CBS College Publishing. KESSLER, H.H.1953. Rehabilitation of the Physically Handicapped. New York: University Press. KRAUSS, R. 1983. Therapeutic Recreation Service. Principles and Practices. New York: CBS College Publishing. LOCKER, D. 1983. Disability and Disadvantages. Londen: Tavistock. MERCER, D. 1980. In Pursuit of Leisure. Malvern: Sorreti. NAGLER, M.1990. Perspectives on Disability. California: Health Mar­ kets Research.21 NEUMEYER, M.H. 1949. Leisure and Recreation. New York: A.S. Barne and Comp. 43 Wilson, Kok & Hattingh / Pursuits of Wheelchair Users 0DENDAL, F.F., SCHOONEES, P.C.; SWANEPOEL, C.J.; Du TOIT, .S.J.; BOOY­ SEN, C.M. 1988. HAT. Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. Johannesburg: Perskor. PARKES, P. & THRIFT, N. 1980. Time, Space and Places. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. ScHLEIEN, S.J. & RAY, M.T. 1988. Community Recreation and Per­ sons with Disabilities: Strategies for Integration. Baltimore: Paul. Brookes. SHIVERS, J.S. & Hous, F.F.1975. Therapeutic and Adapted Recrea­ tional Services. Philadelphia: Lea & Febig�r. STEIN, J.U. 1986. Including disabled participants. Parks & recrea­ tion, 21(1), pp. 49-52. The Star.1991. Let disabled have their chance in the real world. 26 Augustus. Johannesburg. TUAN, Y. 1974. Space and place: humanistic perspective. Pro­ gress in Geography, 6, pp. 211-247. VAN ZIJDERVELD, B.1987. Sport and normalization. In: Vermeer, A. (Red.), Sports for the Disabled, pp. 25-30. Haarlem: De Vriese­borch. VERMEER, A. (Red.).1987. Sports for the Disabled. Haarlem: DeVrie­ seborch. 44