Review of DPTAC guidance:
Large passenger ships and passenger infrastructure
(final report)

2. Method

2.1 Overview

The project consisted of a number of tasks and included:

• Accessibility assessments of ships and ports
• Assessment of ship operator brochures and websites
• Interviews with port and ship operators
• Interviews with naval architects
• Study of disabled people's experiences of large passenger ship travel

The findings of these tasks were used to answer five questions, devised to match the project objectives:

1. How effective is the IMO and DPTAC guidance?
2. How has the guidance influenced the design of new ships and investment in the infrastructure?
3. What is the impact of the guidance on existing service provision?
4. What publicity has been given to the promotion of accessible services?
5. Is the shipping industry complying with the voluntary guidance?

2.2 Accessibility assessments of ships and ports

Due to the extensive number of services that exist, an accessibility assessment could not be undertaken at all UK ports or on all large passenger ships. Therefore, a sample of 15 ships and 15 ports were selected to represent the range of operations in the UK.

2.2.1 How were ships and ports selected?

This project focussed on passenger ships which are part of the public transport system, servicing both domestic and international routes - more commonly referred to as ferries. Specifically excluded from this project research are domestic and international passenger ships providing solely leisure services - more commonly referred to as cruise ships.

The ships were primarily selected on the basis of capacity and age. A working definition of large passenger ships was derived in consultation with Maritime and Coastguard Agency to include ships 'carrying more than 250 passengers and over 500 tonnes'. Using this definition, vessels registered as passenger ships since 1996 were identified from the Lloyds Register of Ships. It was believed that vessels of this age were most likely to have been influenced by the IMO or DPTAC guidance. Additional selection criteria included:

• type of route - domestic island, Northern Ireland and international,
• country of registration - UK, EU and other,
• type of ship - conventional (i.e. not high speed) and high speed craft, and
• ship operator.

The final sample of 15 ships included a wide range of different types of ships, routes and ship operators:

• Passenger capacity ranged from 250 to over 2000 passengers, of which eight ships carried over 1000 passengers. These larger ships had a capacity of 19,000 to 59,000 gross tonnes.
• Twelve ships were first registered after 2000 and three ships were first registered between 1996 and 1999.
• Five ships served domestic island routes in Scotland and the South of England.
• Three ships served Northern Ireland routes to Scotland.
• Seven ships operated on international routes to EU countries.
• Twelve ships were conventional design and three were high speed craft.
• The ships were operated by nine different operators.
• Eight ships were registered in the UK, five in the EU and two elsewhere. Three of these non-UK registered ships were operated by a UK registered operating company.

The selected ships were found to serve 19 ports within the UK. From this sample, 15 UK ports were selected including:

• six ports serving island routes (referred to as 'domestic island ports' in this report);
• four ports serving Northern Ireland to Scotland routes (referred to as 'Northern Ireland ports' in this report); and
• five ports serving international routes (referred to as 'international ports' in this report).

2.2.2 How was port and ship access assessed?

The physical inspections of facilities investigated the provision made for disabled people at each of the sites. The areas assessed included:

• Access to and within terminals
• Facilities within the terminal
• Shore-to-vessel transition
• Access on board the ship
• Facilities on the ship
• Information and announcements
• Provisions for assistance dogs

These areas were assessed against the criteria defined in the DPTAC guidance. The DPTAC guidance refers to 17 other publications including the IMO guidance described in MGN 31 (see Appendix A). The recommendations contained in these publications were also incorporated into the assessment tool alongside the recommendations from the DPTAC guidance. If the recommendations differed between documents, for example the height of handrails above stair tread (850mm in IMO guidance and 1000mm in DPTAC guidance), the best practice was used (1000mm in the example given).

The assessment procedure used a journey sequence format, starting with arrival at the site, and progressing through the port or ship facilities. At each site, one route was followed through the port or ship, and an example was taken of each facility in each section of the site. The facilities chosen were those most likely to be used or used most often. For example, a main restaurant facility would be assessed, but not a smaller sandwich bar. The assessment examined a sample of the facilities available, and was not a comprehensive audit of all facilities.

Facilities that were open to public access are described within the report as 'landside'. All ports excluding the domestic island services had facilities following security and passport control, which are described as having 'restricted access'.

All the assessments were undertaken between July and September 2004.

2.3 Brochure and website assessments

The brochures and websites of large passenger ship operators were assessed against the recommendations in the DPTAC guidance for pre-planning information (described in section 1 of the DPTAC guidance) and provision of information (section 6 of the DPTAC guidance).

2.3.1 Brochure assessment

The assessment involved reviewing 16 brochures, which related to the ships and routes covered as part of accessibility assessments, and also to similar ships and routes.

The brochures were reviewed to identify whether the information that was necessary to enable the traveller to travel was contained and easily accessible i.e. that it was found in the main body of brochure, in clear print, and easily understandable and clear. These reviews were based on searching for information that was important to all travellers and also of special interest to travellers with disabilities. None of the brochures was available in large print or in Braille, therefore all the assessment was based on the standard print versions.

2.3.2 Website assessment

The assessment of the websites took place in two stages, the first stage was an evaluation of the accessibility of the websites to disabled people, and the second stage was an assessment of the content of the websites with reference to the particular needs of potential passengers.

Ten websites were identified for the nine companies whose ships took part in the accessibility assessments, including one that offered different sites for its Irish Sea and international services.

The accessibility of each website was assessed using the 'Bobby' automatic validation tool. This tool assessed the home page of each website against the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines (W3C, 1999).

To assess the usefulness of the content, ten websites were searched for information critical to the travel task. Each search was based upon a particular vessel and route/point of departure and involved searching for information which would be useful to all travellers (timetables, route information) as well as information of special interest to disabled people, such as the provision of special assistance.

2.4 Interviews with port and ship operators

Interviews were carried out with managers at each of the ports and on board each ship included in the accessibility assessments, where possible. This manager was either the duty manager or operational manager. The interview covered:

• awareness of the DPTAC guidance and other documents;
• staff disability awareness;
• company policies regarding disabled passengers; and
• special assistance provision.

These issues are covered under section 7 of the DPTAC guidance.

The interviews also aimed to find out whether the DPTAC guidance, or any other guidance, had been used in the design, construction or refurbishment undertaken or planned for that site since publication of the DPTAC guidance. A structured interview schedule was used, so each person was asked exactly the same questions in the same order. A few open questions were included, where the response is not pre-categorised.

As many of the interviewees had not been involved in the design of vessels, interviews were also carried out with senior managers (usually the technical director) of five UK operators whose 11 ships were included in the accessibility assessments. These interviews also covered design practice in relation to new build projects. The five companies operate the majority of UK routes so were considered to be representative of the UK industry.

The five UK operators' marketing departments were also contacted for details of passenger numbers, changes in patronage and publicity given to accessible services.

2.5 Interviews with naval architects

The Royal Institute for Naval Architecture circulated a request for assistance with this project to its members. A total of five naval architects responded with details of the guidance they use in their designs, of whom three were based in the UK. Only one of the five naval architects had designed a large passenger ship, as defined for this project, but the vessel did not operate in UK waters.

The naval architects were asked what guidance or documents they consulted when designing a vessel to be accessible to disabled people. The interview also sought their views of the DPTAC guidance.

2.6 Study of disabled people's experiences of large passenger ship travel

Disabled people's experiences of large passenger ship travel were collected to assess the current accessibility of ports and large passenger ships from the user's perspective. Potential passengers with no recent experience of passenger ship also reported on barriers that might inhibit travel or that might be faced by first time users.

2.6.1 How were disabled passengers recruited?

A broad definition of disability was used to include older and disabled people with mobility, sensory, cognitive and mental health impairments.

Contact was made with over 30 organisations with interests in accessibility and disability in order to identify people who had recently travelled by passenger ship (see acknowledgements section for a list of organisations). Contacts were also established with various disability access forums located close to ports included in the accessibility assessments.

Ninety-six disabled people and two carers took part in the study. In addition, eight 'expert' representatives from organisations such as Leonard Cheshire, MENCAP and the organisers of the disability access forums reported on the travel experiences and requirements of their membership.

Table 1 shows the main impairment of the 96 disabled people who took part in this project. The categories are based on the individual's own description of their condition and the difficulties they encounter when travelling by large passenger ship. It should be noted that many of the participants had multiple impairments but only one is recorded in the Table.

Table 1: Reported primary impairment of participants in each passenger investigation

Approximately two-thirds of the participants (67) described a mobility impairment and just under half of these usually or always used a wheelchair. Others reported less noticeable mobility impairments caused by various conditions such as emphysema, asthma, ME, MS or which affected manual dexterity through arthritis affecting the hands. These conditions lead to difficulties in walking, stair climbing or standing, or in managing door handles and lift controls, while reported levels of mobility often varied from day to day or over time. Day to day living difficulties also included some secondary impairment such as hearing loss, or memory loss.

Eleven of the participants had visual impairments, including two people who used an assistance dog. Six people had significant hearing loss, of whom two communicated only through a BSL signer. One person with visual impairments also reported significant hearing loss.

Eleven of the participants reported cognitive impairments or learning difficulties affecting their ability to communicate or process information.

To ensure the views of people with mental health impairments were included, contact was made with the National Autistic Society, MIND and the Manic Depression Fellowship Bipolar. These organisations highlighted issues such as service and training to recognise the condition and offer appropriate assistance, and financial barriers to access (the cost of services).

2.6.2 How was the data collected?

Disabled people's experiences of large passenger ship travel were collected using individual and group interviews and observation. A study of disabled people living in remote island communities was also carried out using interviews and focus groups (referred to as the 'island group' in this report). Table 2 shows the number of participants who took part in each activity.

Table 2: Number of participants by data collection method

The sample included frequent, occasional, and potential large passenger ship travellers (those who have never travelled or travelled some time ago).

Interviews
Most of the interviews were unstructured and conducted by telephone. A topic guide was used to guide the discussion to ensure all areas of interest were covered. The interviews invited people to talk about their experience of a recent journey and covered the whole journey lifecycle from pre-planning to arrival. Safety issues were also covered. The questions and order of the questions in these interviews varied between participants. Other participants took part using email.

Thirty-two of the 36 interviewees reported that they had travelled on a passenger ship in the current or previous year. They had travelled on 33 routes, using 10 different operators and 15 different ports. These participants typically named the route travelled and usually the operator, and described their journey experience in some detail.

Twenty-four people had used one of nine ports included in the assessment, and 24 people also named one of eight operators included in the assessment. They were less often able to name the ship used; however 10 people had travelled on one of the routes included in the assessment.

Focus groups
Focus groups were held with people who lived near to ports included the accessibility assessments. This included people who travelled by ferry and those with no recent experience. During the focus groups recent large passenger ship travellers reported on their journey experience, while the discussion raised broader issues of requirements and barriers in relation to specific impairments. This allowed people with no recent experience of travelling by ship to consider their current needs and the changes that have taken place in service provision.

One focus group included people with hearing impairments and a BSI signer was provided.

The participants in the various groups had an age range from teenager to over 80 years, with a relatively even split between male and female.

Observation
The researchers observed a group of people on a day trip using one of the large passenger ships and ports included in the site assessment. The group were unfamiliar with travel by ship and so reported the on board experience as 'first time' users. The group included people with hearing impairments and a BSI signer was provided.

Island group study
Participants who specifically represented the needs of remote communities using life-line services took part in the 'island group'. They contributed to the study using a variety of methods - phone, email or face to face interviews or focus groups - according to the needs and availability of the individuals taking part.

The 'island group' described their experiences of recent island to mainland travel using two of the ships included in the assessment, as well as a third very similar ship, older ships operating on similar routes, and smaller ships operating inter-island services.

2.7 Presentation of findings

It should be noted that because of the small number of ships and ports included in the study, and consequently the number of facilities assessed, it would be misleading in most cases to quote figures as percentages. The findings are therefore reported in numbers only. The Tables show as 'n' the numbers on which the question is based.

The study of disabled passengers collected narrative rather than numerical data, so the analysis of the data was based upon identifying examples of positive experiences and critical incidents which made travelling difficult.

2.7.1 Assessment criteria score

An Assessment Criteria Score (ACS) was calculated from the accessibility assessment data. This score is the percentage of assessment criteria that were met during the assessment.

The score is based upon the facilities that were assessed as part of the route. Each criterion is a recommendation from the DPTAC guidance or the relevant document referred to in the DPTAC guidance (see section 2.2.2 for more information). It gives an indication of the 'quality' of the facilities that were provided, in terms of accessibility.

The number of facilities assessed at the each sites differed, so the scores are based on a different number of criteria. The score does not take into account whether other facilities should have been provided at the site, or if some criteria are more important than others.

It should be noted that the DPTAC guidance presents 'best practice', and it should be accepted that not all assessment criteria are relevant to a particular site.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]

Published: 14 June 2006 | Copyright disclaimer | Content disclaimer | © Crown copyright 2008