To The Top - designing disabled-friendly challenge courses

The second term, "universal" design, moves beyond tee idea of accessible. Accessible design juxtaposes accessible components with typical construction in order to eliminate or minimize environmental barriers for people with disabilities. Universal design creates a broadly inclusive environment that effectively blends a variety of design concepts, including accessible, into a range of meaningful options for all users. In a universally designed program it is not evident that modifications have been made for a specific person or group.

Regarding adventure programs and universal design, the AEE speaks in terms of transcending disability rather than compensating for the lack of ability (standard 4.A.02). This approach to inclusion is solution oriented, ability focused, with emphasis on socially meaningful roles.

Including Participants with Disabilities

Just as there are many different types of disabilities, there are also numerous design possibilities for a challenge course that will include participants with disabilities. For participants with vision or hearing impairments the concerns are related more to communication and program procedures than to the actual design of the course. A similar statement could be made about any population that is ambulatory and cognitively intact. It will always be necessary to consider participant abilities related to such things as understanding instructions, the use of the equipment, perceptions of risk, current health/medication concerns, and the ability to function in a group. Most of the design work for including people with sensory, psychological, intellectual, or developmental impairments and/or delays, will occur at the program and implementation level. This places a large responsibility on facilitators to craft a conceptually and technically sound experience based on the needs of the group. These populations are able to utilize most traditional challenge course elements, though some consideration may need to be given to the amount of actual physical risk and problem-solving difficulty built into the course. As previously mentioned, the natural flexibility of challenge courses makes these kinds of fundamental concerns relatively easy to address.

Many programs with challenge courses struggle when they encounter a participant who has a significant physical disability, particularly one that requires the person to use some type of adaptive equipment, such as a wheelchair. It is possible for a person that uses a wheelchair to negotiate some traditional challenge course elements. While some elements are more difficult than others, it is important to not overlook this option (Havens, 1992). The experience of this author, however, suggests that the unusual effort and/or support required to negotiate most traditional elements cuts both ways in terms of benefits. Some concerns include the compromise of dignity, jeopardizing the participant's safety, and the degree to which the experience departs from a group-centered process and shifts to one focused on the needs and/or efforts, even the performance of the person with the disability. Inclusion suggests a social dynamic of equitable exchange exists within a group. There is nothing wrong with uniqueness and extra individual effort. The question is, are these adding value to the group development experience? Or is the net effect a reinforcement of the differences between individual participants?