Designing for Disabled People in Home Zones

3.0 Site Tests

Data was gathered from a number of Home Zones (n=11) using semi structured site tests from a sample of disabled and non-disabled participants (n=73).

3.1 Method for Selection of Home Zones

The method of selection of the Home Zones to be considered in the project was clearly an important part of the research process. There is no 'blueprint' for Home Zones and so selection as originally proposed was to be based around the criteria (see section 1.1) taking into account the following:

• whether a Home Zone was a Challenge or Non-Challenge site;
• whether a Home Zone: was a retrofit or new build project;
• the social status of the area in which the Home Zone was situated;
• the area of the UK;
• the availability of existing statistical information to allow for assessments to be made of safety audits and/or previous residents surveys.

However, the research team decided that to classify and select the Home Zones to be considered using only the above criteria would lead to some key issues not being fully addressed. These issues included, for example, how the different layouts of a Home Zone might either affect or be affected by disabled people themselves, especially when considering the various activities that may take place within a Home Zone environment. Therefore, the findings of the literature review were also used to develop and hone the key issues that the research team felt should be considered in the selection of the sites.

3.1.1 The Findings of the Literature Reviews

The Literature review undertaken by JMU identified a number of issues that had the potential to affect the safety and mobility of disabled people when using Home Zones. It was established that these issues could be categorised into three stages of a Home Zone's implementation identified as 'development', 'design' and 'success'. These are fully described in Section 5.1 of the JMU Literature Review (see also Appendix B). These stages will now be briefly described.

3.1.1.1 Development

As there is no blueprint for Home Zones, it was decided that an aim of the project should be to investigate the development process of a site in terms of how the design of a site and its subsequent accessibility had been influenced by:

• Consultation with disabled people;
• Cost restraints;
• The influence of issues such as being in a conservation area;
• Any National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) activities.

It was decided to select one site for which consultation with disabled people had been carried out in accordance with best practice recommendations, and one site where no consultation was undertaken.

3.1.1.2 Design Practicalities

Individual Home Zones may utilise similar design elements, but each Home Zone also needs to reflect the aspirations of the community it serves. The literature review identified key design principles which were also used in the selection of the test sites. These included:

• Generic issues to be tested in all sites such as, for example, the provision of lighting, street furniture, materials, planting etc (see also Sections 3.3.1 later in this report and 6.2 in Appendix B);
• Non-generic issues that can have an impact on the safety and mobility of disabled people including, for example, shared surfaces, indirect traffic routes and the presence (or otherwise) of guidance paths.

Therefore sites were selected that displayed features whereby the research team could examine the use by disabled people of the following layouts:

• Shared Surfaces
• Complete removal of delineation between vehicles and pedestrians;
• Some delineation of vehicles and pedestrians by:
• Standard height kerbs.
• Low height kerbs.
• Delineation using visual contrast (colour) and/or surface texture.
• Indirect Traffic Routes
• Clear continuous pedestrian-only route provided.
• No provision of clear continuous pedestrian route.
• Guidance Path
• Provision of a guidance path through the Zone.

3.1.1.3 Scheme with Known Difficulties for Disabled People

The literature review identified that Darcy Gardens in Barking and Dagenham had previously been highlighted by the JCMBPS as being a site that had been identified as adversely affecting the navigation of blind and partially sighted people. Although not designated as a Home Zone, the site contains many features that are present in other Home Zones. After further discussion about the issues at this site it was selected for examination in this research project.

3.1.1.4 Number of Schemes Selected

In response to the above selection process, a total of 10 home zones schemes and one further site were selected, this included 8 Challenge Home Zones, 1 English non challenge scheme which was retrofitted, 1 new pilot scheme in Scotland and the site discussed in section 3.1.1.3 which was previously identified as presenting difficulties for disabled people.

3.2 Selected Schemes

The selected Home Zones demonstrated a wide geographical spread throughout the UK, a mix of both new and retrofit sites with the inclusion of some sites that had been included as either Pilot or Challenge sites. The selection was as follows:

3.2.1 Southville (Bristol)

This retrofit Home Zone has a shared surface (no delineation between vehicles and pedestrians) with parking present which is not designated via colour surface or bollards.

Figure 3.1: Southville Home Zone

3.2.2 Former Royal Infirmary, Constitution Road (Dundee)

This new build Home Zone has a shared surface with limited delineation via a low height kerb. The kerb delineates the highway and garden area which provides a limited pedestrian area and therefore freedom of movement.

Figure 3.2: Former Royal Infirmary Home Zone

3.2.3 Lupton Street (London Borough of Camden)

This retrofit Home Zone has various fixed above surface features (that allow freedom of movement - bollards, trees, planters, bins etc) and has a limited use of colour contrast to demarcate space.

Figure 3.3: Lupton Street Home Zone

3.2.4 Staiths South Bank (Gateshead)

This new-build Home Zone has various fixed above surface features (that restrict freedom of movement - long walls, long planters). In addition it has various nonfixed above surface features e.g. designated and non-designated car parking. While some areas may have clear pedestrian routes, there are other areas where a pedestrian route is not clear. The scheme also makes use of many planted areas.

Figure 3.4: Staiths South Bank Home Zone

3.2.5 Albany Street (Kingston Upon Hull)

This retrofit Home Zone makes use of a kerb (which restricts free movement). A kerb line with 2m clear distance from the back of the footway to the kerb was utilised at the request of local groups of blind and partially sighted people. This was kept free from any street furniture. Conservation kerbs with a 450mm splay and 50mm upstand used.

Figure 3.5: Albany Street Home Zone

3.2.6 Suningdale Road and Castle Grove (Portchester, Hampshire)

This retrofit Home Zone provides a clear continuous pedestrian route. It has a clear 1.2m width adjacent to property boundaries to assist blind and partially sighted people.

Figure 3.6: Portchester Home Zone

3.2.7 Duke of Edinburgh Way (Malvern, Worcestershire)

This retrofit Home Zone demonstrates additional features for improved access. Additional tactile paving is included at key crossing points to alert blind and partially sighted residents of the most direct route into and out of the estate, along with corduroy tactile paving at steps.

Figure 3.7: Duke of Edinburgh Way Home Zone

3.2.8 Morice Town (Plymouth)

This retrofit Home Zone has fixed above surface features (that restrict freedom of movement such as long walls). The space has several routes that utilise bollards and planters and also has non-fixed above surface features such as car parking.

Figure 3.8: Morice Town Home Zone

3.2.9 Maryatt Avenue (London Borough of Harrow)

This retrofit Home Zone has an upstand measuring 15mm in height of a contrasting, coloured, chamfered type block on both sides of the street delineating where the existing kerbs are currently in place.

Figure 3.9: Maryatt Avenue Home Zone

3.2.10 Magor Village (Monmouthshire)

This retrofit Home Zone has fixed above surface features (that allow freedom of movement such as bollards, trees, planters, bins etc). The Home Zone also uses texture to demarcate space containing various different surface types including: Tegula Blocked paving, Stonemaster Flag paved area and cobbled areas.

Figure 3.10: Magor Village Home Zone

3.2.11 Darcy Gardens (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham)

This is not a Home Zones scheme. This area is a paved shared surface cul-de-sac with non-fixed above surface features such as non-designated car parking.

Figure 3.11: Darcy Gardens

3.3 Test Methodology

The nature of the individual Home Zones examined in this project varied from zone to zone, although some of the characteristics were identified as being generic to all sites. Therefore, it was established early in the project that the varying features and designs found within the individual sites would require the development of a test procedure that was flexible enough to allow the strategies people adopted in moving around and making decisions to be observed and recorded, whilst maintaining a valuable thread of comparability between Home Zones.

Of the five main senses available to users when gathering information (vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste), it was considered that the participants in the tests would most likely utilise only three of these (vision, hearing and touch) when undertaking the proposed tasks. It was expected that they would maximise these senses depending on their own individual residual abilities and the tests undertaken were designed to reflect this.

3.3.1 Classifying Home Zone Features

To establish this thread a methodology was adopted whereby individual features commonly found within Home Zones could be described in generic terms of how they may affect the use of the Zone, rather than by their name. For example, bollards, waste paper bins, trees, lampposts and individual seats, are often found in Home Zones and can often be used to delineate space.

However, all of these features can be categorised as features that project above ground level and delineate space whilst still allowing freedom of movement and decision on the part of the users. Conversely, a continuous planter, flower bed or row of seating would not.

What was considered to be important was to determine from the users how the presence or absence of such features affected their ability, confidence etc, when using the Home Zone, not simply the identification of the features that were present. This, it was felt, would also allow the development of more generic and 'designer-friendly' design guidance at the end of the research.

Therefore, for this project, Home Zone features were considered in terms of:

• Information at surface level to delineate space and activity:
  For example, the use of visual contrast to identify hazards or give information about features that assists navigation or segregation of activities.
• The provision of physical features at ground level to delineate space and activities:
  For example, tactile surfaces to identify hazards or give information about features that assist navigation or segregation of activities, and which project sufficiently above surface level to be detectable.
• The provision of physical features that project above ground level to delineate space or activities but which allow users a good degree of freedom of movement and decision making:
  For example, bollards, trees, planters, lampposts, individual seating etc.
• The provision of physical features that project above ground level to delineate space or activities but which do not allow users a good degree of freedom of movement and decision making:
  For example, continuous or long length planters, rows of seating, railings etc.
• The effect of lighting (natural and artificial).

3.3.2 Recording of Data

Measurable data was gathered using an audit of the site, the design of which was based on the findings of the literature review which is a combination of design guidelines outlined in the IHIE and other Home Zone documents and, where appropriate, other best practice guidance in the access field. Much of the data captured from the subsequent site tests was qualitative.

Participants were asked to consider and offer comments on how they orientated and navigated around a site, and between two specific points within the site. During and after the test they were asked about decision points, crossing points and their preferred route. A number of participants were videoed during their navigation task and this information was used to supplement other recorded data.

The individual nature of Home Zones meant that it was not possible to select a navigation task for participants that was identical in all test locations. However, across the sites the tests did consider the interaction of the participants with the generic issues described earlier (for example, the provision of lighting, visual contrast, street furniture), and also any non-generic issues found at individual test sites. These included, for example, any differences in implementation of the design of site layout, with reference to application of the 'shared space' concept.

A questionnaire about general issues and experience was used to gather information about participant behaviour and opinion on issues related to navigation and safety. The findings of this questionnaire are described in Section 7.3 (see also Appendix E).

As the information gathered in this process was complex, a coding system was used in the analysis of the data.

Note:
The coding system used assigned interpretive tags to text based on relevant categories and themes (Cope, 2003). The method adopted is one that is encouraged in the Magenta Book (Government Chief Social Researchers Office, 2004), which outlines "Thematic data ordering in which raw data from different cases are brought together under thematic headings" (Government Chief Social Researchers Office, 2004).

In the analysis, data was broken down into statements under headings such as 'ease of movement', 'colour contrast', 'surface texture and layout', etc and entered into a qualitative software program (XSight, QSR International). Within this program, statements are broadly classified according to whether they were 'positive' or 'negative', and this allows the study to compare any patterns experienced with different features/layouts and experiences of people with similar impairments.

3.3.3 Changes in Methodology

In the earlier development phases of the project, the proposal was to gather a greater degree of quantitative data than was actually possible.

The changed strategy took place following the pilot test when it was identified that the method of data gathering originally proposed for the navigation task was not practical for this project, and there were a number of reasons for this.

Initially, it was proposed to adopt a methodology first established in the FIT project (Yohannes et al, 2004), which examined the navigation and identification strategies used by blind and partially sighted people when negotiating unfamiliar internal transport environments.

However, the pilot test identified certain factors relating to Home Zones, such as, for example, the need to negotiate surfaces shared with moving vehicular traffic, resulting in the need to adapt the original methodology.

3.4 Participant Profiles

3.4.1 Gender and Age

Of the 73 participants who took part in the site tests, 40 (55%) were male and 33 (45%) were female. Whilst some participants were under the age of 35, the majority were older. The age range with the greatest number of participants was 35 to 49 years. See Figure 3.12.

Figure 3.12: Age Profile of Participants

3.4.2 Description of Disability (see also Figure 3.13)

The disabilities of the 73 participants who took part in the site tests were as follows:

• Blind or partially sighted - 23
• Blind or partially sighted and reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) - 4
• Deaf or hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted - 6
• Deaf or hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) - 1
• Deaf or hard of hearing - 8
• Deaf or hard of hearing and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) - 4
• Deaf or hard of hearing and reduced mobility (part-time wheelchair user) - 1
• Deaf or hard of hearing and reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) - 1
• Learning disability and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) - 4
• Learning disability and reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) - 2
• Reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) - 13
• Reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) - 3
• Reduced mobility (part time wheelchair user) - 1
• Reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) and no speech - 1
• Reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) and mental health problem - 1

Figure 3.13: Participants by Disability

Key:

• Personal mobility
• Top of page