The Americans with Disabilities Act and Equal Access to Public Spaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very well written article that makes a distinctive contribuition to a specific issue, to wit, the passing of laws in the US at the state, county and city level, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990. The paper shows, through analysis of several concrete cases, that there is a long way to go before the 1990 Act becomes tryly effective. That said, there are a number of weaknesses, at least one of which the authors should address. First, the paper is largely descriptive. Second, it mostly focuses on law in the books and not in law in action, i.e., it is not asked whether there are significant discrepancies between valid law and the law as it is interpreted and enforced. These first two points limit the interest of the article and they should perhaps be acknowledged as such. Third, and more importantly, it is not explained how and why these particular cases were chosen to exemplify the workings of the 1990 Act. Was the selection random or are the examples representative? If so, why? It seems to me that the paper could be accepted for publication if revised to address at least this last issue. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their insightful comments. As can be seen in our new draft, we have worked to address their concerns and incorporate new material into the article to make it more robust. Our response to the reviewers’ specific comments is below.

The first reviewer stated: First, the paper is largely descriptive. Second, it mostly focuses on law in the books and not in law in action, i.e., it is not asked whether there are significant discrepancies between valid law and the law as it is interpreted and enforced. These first two points limit the interest of the article and they should perhaps be acknowledged as such. Third, and more importantly, it is not explained how and why these particular cases were chosen to exemplify the workings of the 1990 Act. Was the selection random or are the examples representative? If so, why? It seems to me that the paper could be accepted for publication if revised to address at least this last issue.

We agree that our article is largely descriptive and meant to demonstrate that, while laws like the ADA, Section 504, and others can address barriers to equal access, without political will, adequate funding, and proactive compliance and enforcement, state and local governments do and will fall short of their legal obligation to ensure that their public spaces are accessible to people with disabilities. However, we have added additional language to clarify why the case law we highlighted was chosen. More importantly, we added a new section with quotations from people with disabilities and advocates who have experienced similar barriers to those faced by the plaintiffs in those cases. We hope that this additional material will help readers better understand the challenges people with disabilities face when attempting to ensure that they can access public transportation, sidewalks, and rights of way.

Once again, we thank the reviewers for their comments and hope our revisions have resolved their concerns. We look forward to working with the editors to publish this article.

Reviewer 2 Report

This piece has the potential for publication, but considerable revisions are required. Whilst the American context is well explained for an international audience, more explanation is needed to link it to the Leeds Public Space project. This could benefit particularly with the discussion of individual states. What is written at the moment, whilst informative as to the situation, does not appear to add anything new to the overall scholarship at the moment. The discussion and conclusion section is overly brief and needs greater detail and explanation.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their insightful comments. As can be seen in our new draft, we have worked to address their concerns and incorporate new material into the article to make it more robust. Our response to the reviewers’ specific comments is below.

The second reviewer stated: Whilst the American context is well explained for an international audience, more explanation is needed to link it to the Leeds Public Space project. This could benefit particularly with the discussion of individual states. What is written at the moment, whilst informative as to the situation, does not appear to add anything new to the overall scholarship at the moment. The discussion and conclusion section is overly brief and needs greater detail and explanation.

We have added additional information on the Leeds Public Space project and how our work aligns with its goals and efforts. We also, as mentioned, included quotes from interviews with people with disabilities that document their unique perspectives and linked their experiences to the representative case law and larger themes discussed throughout the article. We also reworked the discussion section to include additional material on potential solutions to improve accessibility of public spaces, including tangible actions municipalities can take to ensure equal access to public transportation, sidewalks, and rights of way.

Once again, we thank the reviewers for their comments and hope our revisions have resolved their concerns. We look forward to working with the editors to publish this article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I want to thank the authors for clarifying so many aspects of their argument. I now think it is ready to be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your review of our article.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper should now be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your review of our article.