This section discusses some of the literatures that have bearing on the economic benefits of making the physically built environment accessible to persons with disabilities.

The purpose is not to present an exhaustive survey but to provide examples of both results and methods. While in the literature on disability related matters there are ample references to integration and normalization, there are relatively few-well documented and analytical studies in the area of economic benefits of making the physically built environment accessible to persons with disabilities.

Therefore, it seems that the field has not attracted much interest from the economists. The few, though general in nature including those mentioned below have documented some social and economic benefits of barrier-free built environment.

Business Institutions Compliance with Anti-discrimination Laws Evan, T. (1995), ADA (Americans with Disability Act) Compliance Motivators and Strategies study uncovered the below- mentioned findings. One hospital reported spending too much money on workmen's compensation and disability benefits.  For example, legal fees fighting some of these claims were costing over $100,000 per year.

They decided to implement the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compatible program to get these former employees back on the job.  Within the first year, their investment in this training, adapting the built environment and adding one new staff position had returned a five-fold return on their investment and disability-related lawsuits were cut by half.  

A food store company reported to have added automatic doors to all of their stores because their experiment in adding automatic doors to two of their department stores although not required by the ADA (Americans with Disability Act) Guidelines, generated more traffic and value in those stores than did their advertising campaign costing the same amount of money.  

One commercial bank also decided to take a pro-active approach in complying with the ADA (Americans with Disability Act) and made some significant changes in their facilities, procedures and services to better accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.  Since they were ahead of their competitors in this effort, they expected to pick up some new revenue from persons with disabilities whom they could serve better than their competitors.  

Then, they realized that persons with disabilities had family members (lots of them) who changed their accounts over to their bank because they appreciated the accommodating approach and service attitude that this bank was showing.   

In many organizations, the study further revealed that their activities were for the simple desire to minimize the risk of lawsuits, federal intervention from complaints, and negative publicity.  This strategy was perhaps the most common in small businesses and those companies under the severest economic circumstances.

This approach is claimed to be similar to the freeway driver who uses a radar detector to allow him to drive 15 or 20 miles over the speed limit without getting caught.  The desire is not so much to comply with the law, but not to get caught.  In ADA (Americans with Disability Act) compliance, companies taking this approach typically range from those who do nothing, to those who put a few signs up indicating that anyone who needs assistance should ask for it.  

When someone with a disability complains to them about accessibility in their facility, they might respond by removing only the cheapest of the barriers mentioned in the complaint, and claiming that all others were not readily achievable due to difficult financial situations or other reasons.

The second level of motivation is based on the desire to comply with the law.  This desire may be backed by a minimal or a substantial commitment to investment in compliance.  If the core motivation is to comply with a law that is perceived to be basically fair, the approach is very different from the first level of motivators. Those organizations that wish to comply with the law are best served by calling in an accessibility specialist, or an organization like an umbrella organisation that represents people with a variety of disabilities, to review barriers to persons with disabilities in their facilities.  

The consultant will document those barriers in a way that they can be removed, in phases, if necessary.  Some organizations will be able to dedicate one person full-time to study the law and its regulations and guidelines, and to coordinate their compliance efforts.  After a month or two of studying the regulations and technical assistance materials affecting their organization, a company with their own coordinator needs very little help to interpret the law.

The third level of motivation was a desire to spend the effort required to do what makes good business sense. This approach is mostly used by companies who are willing to invest the time to study the options before they act.  If this is the organization's motivator, it is wise to bring together a task force, which includes, at least, a minimum representative from facilities, personnel, legal, finance (or administration), customer service and marketing.  

Early strategy development should be based on compliance with the law, as well as corporate image and customer demographics. In conclusion, according to the study, the department store mentioned above made their decision to install automatic doors based on marketing sense rather than the ADA (Americans with Disability Act), since ADA does not even require automatic doors in new facilities.  

Similar accommodation that might make excellent business sense, but are beyond what is required under the ADA (Americans with Disability Act), include offering optional curb side, drive up or home delivery in addition to removing facilities barriers to people with disabilities.  Similarly, toilet room and curb ramp modifications undertaken to improve access for people who use wheelchairs also significantly improved access for people who push strollers.  In fact, many unisex toilet rooms are now being built as family toilet rooms.  

The three primary benefits that should be considered under the third level of motivation are firstly, the benefits of new customers who have disabilities and who directly benefit from the accommodation.  Secondly, benefit is from the public relations advantage point of view that is gained by accommodating people with disabilities.  The general public supports the goals of the ADA (Americans with Disability Act) by a margin of more than ten to one.  Not only do persons with disabilities benefit and begin to use the services of accommodating businesses, but also their relatives and friends become more frequent clients and customers.  

The third benefit is that individuals who do not have disabilities, but who also benefit from the accommodation are better able to use the facilities and, therefore, more likely to patronize the business.  These include people like mothers with small children who benefit from curb ramps, proper ramp slopes, larger toilet rooms and toilet stalls, as well as lower controls, operating mechanisms and dispensers, which allow children to use the facilities with less help.  

Also benefiting from accommodation for persons with disabilities are individuals who have temporary injuries, or are weakened from sicknesses.  These are not classified as disabilities, and, therefore, not included in the 43 million beneficiaries figure. People who have their hands and arms full of packages benefit more from easily operated hardware and lighter force door closers and, of course, many elderly people will benefit from the accommodation made for persons with disabilities, even though they may not be technically classified as persons with disabilities.

The fourth major motivating factor behind making accommodation for persons with disabilities is the desire to do what is "right".  These are the companies who believe "what goes around comes around" and who are willing to follow their instincts even when pure justification for their actions can't be shown beforehand.  

This motivating attitude is most prevalent in very profitable organizations, but it also appeared in organizations where focus on employees and clients is at a high level, or where a key individual has close contact with someone with a disability.