Designing for Disabled People in Home Zones

Appendix C: Draft Analysis of Focus Groups

Overall Objectives

• Assess the safety of disabled people in Home Zones.
• Recommend solutions to identified problems.
• Disabled people, with a variety of disabilities, should be consulted throughout the fact finding and recommendation process.

Aims of this Task

• To analyse the recommended solutions to problems identified in the site tests.

1. Methodology

1.1 Rationale for Revision of Method

The original brief stated that the design-professional focus groups and end-user focus groups would take place separately and in sequence. In order to meet the objectives of Phase Three, which are to recommend solutions to the issues identified in site testing and evaluate these solutions with end users, it was decided to combine the design-professionals and end-users into the same focus groups. This would encourage dialogue and consensus building towards proposed solutions. Combining the two groups of participants would ensure that solutions are agreed by both categories of participant rather than passing messages between the two groups and potentially never reaching a solution that is agreed by both.

1.2 Locations and Method

The project undertook 7 focus groups around the UK at the following locations:

1. London (28/09/2006) Focus group with design professionals
2. Bristol (04/10/2006) Mixed focus groups with design professionals and end users with a site visit at Southville Home Zone
3. Kingston upon Hull (11/10/2006) Mixed focus groups with design professionals and end users with a site visit at Albany Street Home Zone
4. Gateshead (12/10/2006) Mixed focus groups with design professionals and end users with a site visit at Staiths South Bank Home Zone
5. Portchester, Hampshire (17/10/2006) Mixed focus groups with design professionals and end users with a site visit at Portchester Home Zone
6. London (23/10/2006) focus group with end users
7. London (26/10/2006) Joint seminar between Guide Dogs 'Shared Surface Street Design Research Project' and DPTAC 'Design Guidelines for Home Zones reflecting the needs of disabled people project'

These locations are shown in Figure 1.1. While all of the focus groups took place in England, the venues were chosen so as to be accessible for participants from Scotland and Wales.

Four of the focus groups included a site visit at one of the Home Zone test sites and then moved to a nearby venue for a solution finding session. Each of the four sites were chosen for specific design components and processes undertaken in their development, that were of particular interest to the project. This included:

• a Home Zone where local disabled groups were consulted with and came up with design requirements, primarily a semi-kerb, but some aspects may still not be considered successful
• a new build Home Zone
• a Home Zone that had a shared surface and had limited consultation with disabled people
• a Home Zone where local disabled people were heavily consulted throughout the design process.

Figure 1.1: Locations of Focus Groups

As described in the Magenta book (Government Chief Social Researchers Office, 2004) focus groups allow for the development and reflection of ideas from outside the group and also participants own experiences:

"In focus groups, data are shaped and refined through the group interaction. Hearing from other participants stimulates further thought, encouraging people to reflect on their own views or behaviour and triggering further material." (Government Chief Social Researchers Office, 2004).

Focusing upon the development of solutions was a key objective for the focus groups, and it was a priority for the facilitator to shift the emphasis away from focusing on problems to ensure that the focus remained on identifying solutions rather than simply discussing problems.

1.3 Focus Group Schedules

For the mixed groups this schedule was followed:

Target participants: 5-10 end users, 5-10 design professionals

10:30am - Participants meet at venue
10:35am - 11:00am - Welcome and introduction to project and presentation of site testing findings
11:00am - 12:30pm - Site visit at Home Zone site
12:30pm - 1:00pm - Lunch
1:00pm - 2:45pm - Breakout group with discussion
2:45pm - 3pm - Summary of discussion / solutions
3pm - Close

For the groups made up entirely of just end users or design professionals this schedule was followed:

Target participants: 10-20 participants

2.00pm - 2.20pm - Welcome and introduction to project and presentation of site test findings
2:20pm - 3:50pm - Breakout group with discussion
3:50pm - 4pm - Summary of discussion / solutions
4pm - Close

Figure 1.2: Site Visit at the Focus Group in Southville Home Zone, Bristol

1.4 Participant Sample

Gender
Of the 79 participants 51 were male and 28 were female, which is a spilt of 65% male to 35% female.

Type of people participating in focus groups
As Figure 1.3 shows there was quite an even split between the number of disabled people (29 people), access professionals (21 people, some of whom were also disabled people) and design professionals (27 people). Two guide dogs rehabilitation workers also took part.

Figure 1.3: Types of People Participating in Focus Groups

2. Findings and Solutions

2.1 Discussion of Site Test Findings

Designing Effective Home Zones that Reduce Speeds
Several design professional participants felt that many Home Zones (including several of the Home Zone sites used in the site testing) that have been designated have not been designed or implemented as well as they could have been. These participants believed that these Home Zones do not reduce vehicle speeds below 20mph or achieve the social interaction that they aimed to.

Suggestions in achieving this included ensuring that consultation with residents does not 'design out' essential speed reduction measures, encourage interaction and, most importantly, do not remove 'inclusive' elements that assist the safety and navigation of disabled people.

Design professional participants felt that if more Home Zones achieved their aims (of reducing speed and increasing interaction) then disabled people would have fewer problems with safety or navigation. This led to suggestions of higher standards for Home Zone designation that ensures only Home Zones, which reduce speeds below 20mph and achieve significant increases in social interaction are officially designated.

People with Different Disabilities have Conflicting Requirements in Home Zones
Some design professional participants stated from their own experience that people with different disabilities actually have conflicting requirements for the design of Home Zones. They cited examples such as people with reduced mobility preferring spaces with no kerb and blind and partially sighted people preferring a kerb.

However the site testing does not confirm this and in fact suggests that a large proportion of people with reduced mobility also encountered navigation and safety problems in areas that have no kerb (47% had problems using shared surfaces and 53% mentioned that they preferred a pedestrian pathway of some kind).

Using Shared Surfaces
A large proportion of disabled participants indicated that when using shared surfaces they were concerned about interacting with vehicles and finding 'safe' areas from approaching vehicles. Some participants indicated that they would like the choice of having a safe area to move to when in areas where users mix with vehicles.

The User and Access professional focus group actually felt strongly enough to suggest that a shared surface should not be a recommended as design feature because of issues around safety and navigation. Discussion around this issue lead to an alternative to current kerb provision, such as a lower kerb line, examples of which have been applied in Denmark. It was agree that this design feature needs further testing and should not be implemented under this has been established.

Some participants believed that while it may be true that the majority of motorists will decrease their speed and drive in a more considerate way, they will always be worried about the minority of motorists who will not change their behaviour.

This concurs with the findings from the site tests which identified problems with using shared surface as a common experience (44% had problems using shared surfaces with no delineation and 19% made negative statements about using shared surfaces that had delineation).

The question of how to effectively protect a pedestrian area whilst maintaining the perception of shared space to drivers was an issue raised by both designers and users. Some users felt that bollards do not always provide enough separation as certain vehicles could still access this area and for some disabilities, bollards would not be sufficiently identifiable. It was suggested that at least one side of the site should provide a clear pedestrian route.

Speed of Vehicles Regularly Using the Home Zone
Some disabled participants commented that once motorists had learnt the layout and features of the Home Zones and had become familiar with the area they then increased their speed again. However this perception is not supported by published research.

Parking Problems
Participants acknowledged that there are problems with parking in Home Zones, particularly created through inconsiderate parking. It was indicated that it is difficult to legislate and enforce parking patterns in the Home Zone environment.

It was suggested that often more use of physical enforcement of parking is needed, such as the strategic placement of bollards. There were concerns however that the increased use of bollards and similar street furniture has safety implications for blind and partially sighted people who find these elements hard to detect. Some design professionals felt that parking enforcement was against the ethos of the design concept.

Lip Reading and Sign Language Affecting Navigation and Safety
Participants (at the Gateshead event) indicated that in addition to the problems identified for pedestrians using British sign language while walking in a Home Zone environment, similar problems were encountered by deaf and hard of hearing people who communicate by lip reading. Low level features such as bollards, planters and parked cars are potentially more hazardous to people who are walking and lip reading as they need to look at the other persons face and so are less aware of objects at a lower level. This agrees with similar findings in the site tests.

Gateways and Positioning of Home Zone Signs
Several participants (especially wheelchair users) indicated that they would appreciate Home Zone signs being positioned lower so that they can see them (particularly discussed at the Bristol event) as was found in the site tests. However other participants explained that signs are put at a height of between 2 metres and 2.5 metres to discourage vandalism.

Participants also raised the issue of tactile paving as a warning at the gateway to Home Zone sites. This was a particular issue at the Bristol event where tactile paving was placed at the gateways to indicate that users were re-entering a traditional carriageway from a shared surface. Participants indicated that using tactile paving in this way might work better in conjunction with a splay kerb.

2.2 Site Specific Issues

Tactile Paving at the Entrance to the Southville Home Zone
Participants at the focus group at the Southville Home Zone in Bristol had an extended discussion about the use of tactile paving at the entrance to the Home Zone. There was some disagreement about the usefulness of the layout of the gateway, as the tactile paving is positioned in the vehicle path entrance (as can be seen in Figure 2.1).

It was indicated that the paving was positioned in this layout to indicate to users leaving the site that they were entering a carriageway and were no longer in a shared-surface environment. However some disabled people indicated that they found this layout confusing and that they would expect this kind of tactile paving at a crossing. One disabled participant mentioned that they would have included a more pronounced kerb at the edge of the tactile paving as this would be a better indication that the user is rejoining a traditional street layout with a footway and carriageway.

Figure 2.1: The Tactile Paving at the Entrance to the Southville Home Zone, Bristol

Surface Patterns at the Albany Street Home Zone, Kingston upon Hull
Participants at the focus group at Albany Street in Kingston upon Hull discussed the use of swirling patterns on the surface of the Home Zone. Some disabled people felt that while some users might be able to use the pattern to orientate around and locate where they are in the space, other disabled people would find it confusing and a hindrance.

In conjunction with this it was mentioned that the large number of cars parking on the footway was not only obscuring the surface pattern but also making the footway even harder to use and access. This was a particular problem for wheelchair users who reported that there were areas of the footway that they could not access at all and so they were unable to progress through the space.

Figure 2.2: The Surface Pattern at the Albany Street Home Zone, Kingston upon Hull

Tonal Contrast on the Surface of the Portchester Home Zone, Hampshire
The different coloured surfaces that indicate who can use the space (red for vehicle movement and grey for people and parking) were a source of discussion at the Portchester focus group. Some disabled people reported that they could use the tonally contrasted surface to navigate within the space as it was a good indication of where they were in the space. They knew that vehicles were less likely to be moving in the grey areas.

One partially sighted participant stated that it was possible to tell the difference between the different types of asphalt using their roller cane.

Figure 2.3: The Tonally Contrasted Surface at the Portchester Home Zone, Hampshire

2.3 Design Solutions

Considering the Wider Functions of Each Context
Some design professionals and access professionals stated the importance of incorporating the unique wider functions of each area into the design of each Home Zone. They stressed the importance of continually referring to these holistic aims and needs when designing an inclusive Home Zone and believed that if this is not achieved then Home Zones are likely to fail to achieve their overall aims.

Design professional participants also believed that any design guidelines should allow designers to respond to the local circumstances of each Home Zone site and should enable the design and creation of unique spaces. At the same time many participants felt that more prescription and standards are needed to ensure that Home Zones become safer and easier to navigate for disabled people (a view expressed by both disabled people and some design professionals).

Figure 2.4: The Breakout Group at the Focus Group in Southville, Bristol

Creating Delineation Using Tonal Contrast
Some designers suggested that more guidance is needed on tonal contrast rather than colour contrast because if two colours do not contrast tonally then they will not be distinguishable for many blind and partially sighted people. It was concluded that more best practice and standards are needed in this areas. Some design professionals cited projects (such as a project in Bude, Cornwall) that they had worked on that used tonally contrasted surfaces to reduce speeds and guide pedestrians.

Creating Delineation Using Surface Texture
Participants suggested that surface textures often convey more information than is anticipated, for instance some cane users can distinguish between different types of asphalt (mentioned at the end users event, Porcester and Hull). Asphalt surfaces indicate to users that vehicles are likely to use this area and it was suggested that designers should be less reluctant to use asphalt to indicate vehicle paths.

At the same time several access professionals indicated that paved and cobbled areas can cause discomfort for wheelchair users and people using canes to navigate. This concurs with the site tests where several people with reduced mobility indicated that uneven surface textures were causing them discomfort.

Figure 2.5: The Site Visit at the Focus Group in Gateshead

The Use of Kerbs in Home Zones and Shared Surfaces
Some participants indicated that there are many types of design within the 'spectrum' of what is deemed a shared surface. This includes some spaces that use a kerb-line but simplify the streetscape in other ways such as Kensington High Street in the London Borough of Kensington. However other design professionals felt that any kind of delineation goes against the shared surface concept.

Tonal Contrast on Bollards
Several participants mentioned the design practice of using stainless steel bollards. They reported that while stainless steel bollards are aesthetically pleasing and easy to maintain that they reflect the colours surrounding them and do not have sufficient tonal contrast. This agrees with the experience of some of the participants from the site testing who indicated that they had real problems identifying and avoiding stainless steel bollards.

Participants suggested that the key requirement is the correct choice of material that could achieve visibility and durability. Galvanised steel was suggested as offering low maintenance and a less reflective surface. Some participants also suggested that the use of powered coating needed to be investigated further. Again, this material could offer low maintenance and good contrast.

Several participants suggested putting high contrast bands on street furniture such as bollards. Participants believed that this would increase the visibility of these objects and help disabled people to avoid any collisions with these elements.

Sustainability of Tonal Contrast
Participants suggested that design professionals should choose materials that do not change colour as they 'weather in' (due to exposure to the outdoor climate) if this means that in doing so they loose their tonal contrast. Wherever possible consideration should be given to the tonal contrast of a material once it has 'weathered in' so that Home Zones retain their tonal contrast for as long as possible.

Tactile Paving Suggestions
Several participants suggested utilising tactile paving as a warning to end users that they were entering a Home Zone. This tactile paving could stretch right across all gateways to Home Zones. However participants disagreed about the likelihood or usefulness of needing to create a new type of tactile paving surface specifically for the purpose of indicating that you are entering a Home Zone or shared surface.

Some design professionals raised concerns over the use of tactile paving within more extreme weather conditions. Some had found that using corduroy within freezing conditions creates a dangerous slip hazard and as a result had stopped using it. Other designers had experience of where brass studs had been used to provide blister paving but then the studs had to be removed because they created a slip hazard in wet conditions.

Providing Crossing Areas
Participants suggested providing pseudo-crossing areas with orientation cues for disabled people within Home Zones and cited examples of how they had achieved this. This included using materials that aided acoustic navigation, tactile paving, lighting way-leaves mounted on buildings and even sensory planting (using smell to provide orientation cues). These might be used along potential desire lines to assist with navigation.

Figure 2.6: The Site Visit at the Focus Group in Portchester Home Zone, Hampshire

Bollards and Planters
Participants suggested requiring that street furniture such as bollards and planters are at least the height of a 'car bonnet'. This would make them easier to identify and locate and less of a collision hazard for disabled people (as identified in the site testing).

Some participants suggested that bollards should not be installed in Home Zones at all and that well designed planters are much easier to navigate and identify. Planters could be used to create navigable and safe pedestrian pathways in the Home Zone environment.

Ensuring that Disabled People are Included in All Design Consultation
Several participants reported that some Home Zone design consultation did not consult with any disabled people when designing the Home Zones because there were no disabled people residing in the area. It was suggested that local access groups should be included in the design consultation process for every Home Zone, this would ensure that disabled peoples needs are always taken into account.

It was suggested that during consultation residents are given more guidance on how to design quality Home Zones for disabled people. This would highlight the needs of disabled people so that residents constrain their designs to achieve inclusive and accessible Home Zones.

Participants also argued that the costs of designing for disabled people should be included when budgeting for Home Zones. This would ensure that inclusive design elements were not left out because of resource constraints.

Supplementing Consultation with a Guidance Checklist
Some participants suggested that an access checklist, based upon national guidance and research on disabled people's requirements within the Home Zone environment, would provide a good supplement to consultation with access groups. This would mean that a wider range of views and experience is drawn upon than just the local concerns of an access group.

The Usefulness of Design Guidance for Home Zones
When asked if they used Home Zone design guidance designers gave a mixed response, some design professional participants used them and some did not. Some design professionals felt that as most documents are only guidelines that they have little or no obligation or weight behind them. Some of these participants felt that standards should therefore replace guidelines to ensure that certain designs are incorporated. However others felt that the requirement for prescriptive design would create a one-size-fits-all standard and remove one of the key concepts behind the design of Home Zones, which is the unique design and context of each Home Zone site.

Some disabled people felt that access principles should be made a requirement of Home Zone design to help ensure a more inclusive design approach. These should be non-negotiable principles, which could be incorporated into a document such as an access statement that currently existing for new build designs. It was also suggested that an access forum could be established which included local residents, disabled people, access groups, access officers and designers, and access professionals. This would help ensure accountability to the access principles during the design process.

In addition concerns were raised that it is not just the design process that needs to be monitored. The implementation and construction process also needs to be monitored as contractors lacking sufficient information or understanding can often mis-implement the accessible design.

2.4 Non-Design Solutions

Training Disabled People to Use Home Zones
Some participants (mostly design professionals) suggested that disabled people who are residents could receive training to navigate the Home Zone, helping them to identify orientation cues and 'safe' routes. Participants felt that this would be particularly helpful for people who are blind or partially sighted. Some access professionals indicated that they already undertake training and walk-throughs (such as mobility training) with disabled people along routes that they routinely use. However other participants felt that while this works in the traditional street environment, it may be more difficult in the Home Zone environment because of increased ambiguity and uncertainty such as having fewer orientation cues.

Several participants commented that Home Zones should be self-explaining, that the design should speak for itself and that users should not need training to use them. This would enable non-residents, people who develop a disability and visitors to use Home Zones without training.

Figure 2.7: The Breakout Group at the Focus Group in Portchester, Hampshire

Raising the Profile of Home Zones and Residents Packs
Several participants highlighted the need to raise the profile of Home Zones in the UK. This might mean that motorists and pedestrians' use Home Zones more appropriately through an improved understanding of expected behaviour from themselves and others. It may also ease concerns of disabled people that vehicles will not slow down or give them priority in this type of environment (a common concern raised by participants in the site tests).

Suggestions to achieve this included giving an information pack to all residents in a Home Zone that explains the aims and concepts including shared surfaces. This has been achieved with some Home Zones and developers can be contractually bound to supply residents packs in new build developments. Also it was suggested that the Home Zone sign is included in the theory driving test and Highway Code.

3. Summary

The focus groups discussed a wide range of issues, problems and potential solutions regarding the safety and navigation of disabled people in the Home Zone environment.

Design professional participants questioned the quality of many existing 'designated' Home Zones and indicated that when actual speeds are reduced below 20mph then the safety of both disabled people and non-disabled people improves. Design professional participants also discussed whether people with different disabilities have conflicting requirements in Home Zones. Other participants in the focus groups felt that once motorists had become familiar with the layout of a Home Zone then they would increase their speed and carelessness.

Participants also confirmed that parking was a significant problem in Home Zones and it was generally felt that designed physical enforcement was more effective.

In terms of design solutions, some participants stressed the importance of considering the wider function of each Home Zone context. Participants felt that there was a gap in current guidance on tonal contrast. Participants believed that surface texture was a good delineator, especially when the right materials are used to identify vehicle space and pedestrian space.

Participants argued that stainless steel bollards do not provide good tonal contrast because of their reflective nature. It was also suggested that a standard height is prescribed for bollards and planters to reduce collisions for disabled people. Participants also suggested that the effect of 'weathering in' should be taken into consideration with regard to tonal contrast. Some participants suggested using a tactile paving strip to warn disabled people that they are entering a new type of environment. Participants also suggested providing pseudo-crossing areas to provide more orientation cues within the Home Zone environment.

Participants also suggested that a principle of including local access groups in all Home Zone consultation would ensure that disabled people were always consulted. Participants also discussed the usefulness of design guidance for Home Zones and some suggested that standards are the only way to insure that inclusive design is implemented, while others suggested that insisting upon standards would destroy creativity and the unique nature of each Home Zone.

With regard to non-design solutions it was suggested by design professionals that disabled people could be trained to use Home Zones, this would be especially useful for blind and partially sighted people. Participants also indicated that more needs to be done to raise the profile of Home Zones and shared surfaces to ensure that every user type knows how to use them and motorists change their behaviour.

References

Government Chief Social Researchers Office (2004) 'Chapter 8: Qualitative Research and Evaluation' in The Magenta Book: Guidance Notes for Policy Evaluation and Analysis, London: Cabinet Office.

Appendix: Facilitators Breakout Group Schedule

• Personal mobility
• Top of page