Blindness and Geography

In both the public imagination and in geographic practice, we commonly conceive of space in visual terms, symptomatic of a prevailing visual bias in our culture. But what of the spatial experiences of the blind and visually impaired? Do we have to rethink access to spaces, navigation processes and techniques, and mobility? How does this affect our view of what geography is, given that there is research not only on blindness and visual impairment but also research conducted by blind geographers themselves? The question of blindness and geography, while sharing the concerns of geographies of disability, poses some specific spatial considerations, and this entry provides a brief overview, focusing on research conducted on visually impaired people's experiences of space and on the work of blind geographer Reginald Golledge.

In the 1980s, some notable research on blindness was conducted within so-called humanistic geography from a fairly poetic and philosophical perspective, attempting to empathize with the spatial imagination of blind respondents. In the absence of sight, the nonvisual senses were conceived as reaching out to the world and drawing the subject closer to it, and particular attention was paid to the acoustic production of space. A decade later, blind and visually impaired people's experiences of public space were researched in two British cities with a more conventional social science methodology. From their interviews, one feature common to most blind and visually impaired respondents was the importance of the nonvisual senses, especially touch and hearing, in their negotiations within, and navigation around, those cities. Nonvisual spatial navigation underpinned their sense of independence and daily routines, such as shopping and walking around the streets for everyday tasks. From this data, the researchers identified three factors that influenced the social experience of visually impaired people in public space. First, the social significance accorded to bodily “normality” (i.e., what counts as “normal” in terms of bodily appearance and styles of movement, with cane or guide dog); second, the fear of physical or sensory impairments by the public at large; and third, a general ignorance of the capabilities of visually impaired people (e.g., crossing the road, catching a bus) by the public.

The policy implications of such geographical research are clear. Design of the built environment, such as urban walkways, squares, and buildings, determines the mobility and accessibility of the disabled to these spaces and contributes to senses of inclusion or exclusion by the blind and visually impaired, as a result. The blind geographer Reginald Golledge put this into perspective when discussing the ways to achieve “spatial competence.” Golledge had a firsthand grasp of the practical challenges that disabled people must face every day, and over the years he has helped develop navigational aids for the visually impaired, including tactile maps, which model an area through three-dimensional tactile relief rather than two-dimensional visual display. Such aids are important because many blind or visually impaired people are afraid of unfamiliar environments. On the one hand, there are real anxieties about leaving the familiar spatial context of the home as street furniture (e.g., skips, dustbins, lampposts), badly parked cars, or unthinking people pose continual obstacles in their path. However, staying at home limits integration and participation within the larger cultural life. On the other hand, there is a greatly felt need for independence and mobility. Spatial navigation through the city is difficult at the best of times and should be achievable independently. So navigational aids, the design of the built environment, [Page 287]and the understanding of the public at large are all crucial in enabling this independence and mobility within public spaces.

...