Greater mobility for persons with disabilities in Meetjesland[1], Belgium.
An exploratory study
Greet De Brauwere & Stijn Vandevelde
Greet De Brauwere, Ma. Ed.
University College Ghent
Department of Social Work and Welfare Studies
Voskenslaan 362
9000 Gent
Belgium
Tel. +32 (0)479874469
E-mail:
Stijn Vandevelde, PhD
University College Ghent
Department of Social Work and Welfare Studies
Voskenslaan 362
9000 Gent
Belgium
Tel. +32 (0)9 - 242 26 69
E-mail:
Abstract At the request of a non-profit association (VZW ’t Meetpunt) and with the financial support of the Provincial Government of East-Flanders, the Department of Social Work and Welfare Studies at the University College Ghent (a college of higher education) carried out a study of the mobility-friendly facilities and mobility-related problems of disabled persons in Meetjesland. The main goals of this study were:
- to gain an insight into the modes of transport that disabled persons use during their spare time;
- and the difficulties they encounter in doing that
We hoped to achieve these goals by employing several different research methods, namely a limited, non-exhaustive study of the literature and a short-term, but all-embracing empirical study.
In this paper, we put this study in a wider context. We also summarize its findings. We conclude with a few suggestions on leisure time and mobility issues for the people with disabilities.
Key words: people with disabilities, mobility, modes of transport, spare time, literature review, empirical study, accessibility
Towards ‘full handicapped accessibility’ ?
According to recent publications, campaigns and policy measures, the accessibility of all kinds of activities in society has come to prominence in recent years (Declerck, Franssen et al., 2003; Rooij & Tacken, 2001; Prellwitz & Tamm, 1999). People with intellectual, sensory and/or physical disabilities, are, in that connection, one of the target groups being aimed at, besides other target groups, such as elderly people and the sick (Fresher-Samways, Roush et al., 2003; Lieberman & Stuart, 2002). A key trend, in Belgium at least, is the shift towards ‘full handicapped accessibility’. Whereas, in the past, the authorities tried to prescribe a few specific adaptations for specific target groups, they are now advocating a fully-integrated approach. Integrating accessibility needs – of any sort – into the primary social facilities, such as education, employment and transport (Declerck, Franssen et al., 2003, p. 9), is one of the things they are trying.
The ‘full handicapped accessibility’ concept is not aimed at one particular target group. No, the hope is that everyone will be able to avail themselves of all existing services and facilities. In that respect, the ‘full handicapped accessibility’ concept has many points in common with the paradigm of social inclusion which has been in the ascendant for several years now. The term ‘inclusion’ implies that all sections of the community are part of a greater whole and makes acceptance, tolerance, unity and solidarity essential. Ideally all people, with or without disabilities, should, in spite of their differences, be able to participate in each and every social activity (Van Hove, 2000).
Basic concepts which are also inextricably bound up with the ‘full handicapped accessibility’ concept, are accessibility, utility, independence and equality (Declerck, Franssen et al., 2003). This makes it immediately clear that accessibility – and the related topic of mobility – embraces more than a physical, structural component. So physical accessibility is not the be all and end all. Other areas deserve attention too, e.g. the accessibility of information and the accessibility of services.
We endorse the aforementioned fully-integrated vision. Although this recent survey focused primarily on an inventory of the structural problems, it covered other aspects as well. In that way, the accessibility of information (e.g. a facility to view and print public transport timetables) and the accessibility of services (e.g. customer support by public transport personnel) were surveyed too.
Research findings
Within the scope of our study, we opted for a survey of people with disabilities by means of a written questionnaire, which covered the following topics: questions relating to the respondent’s general details; questions about trips made during his or her leisure time; general questions about public transport; suggestions on public transport; and suggestions about the range of leisure activities on offer.
77 facilities, all told, for the disabled in Meetjesland and its environs were asked, by letter, to take part in the survey. This resulted in a response rate of 32.5% of the facilities (n=25) which, between them, sent back 65 completed questionnaires.
The person filling in the questionnaire has a mean age of 44.6 years (sd = 19.16) and is, in most cases (96.7%), the handicapped person him (or her)self. About a fifth (23%) of the respondents completed the questionnaire by themselves but, as a rule, the respondent was assisted in this by a supervisor (70.5%) or by a relative (3.3%).
The respondents are mainly people with an intellectual or physical disability: 33.3% have a intellectual disability and 30.2% a physical disability. Just under a fifth (19%) have multiple disabilities, while 14.3% are visually handicapped. 3.2% of the respondents have a handicap other than those mentioned above. That relates to people with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), among other things.
According to data on the living situation of the respondents, about a third (38.1%) live away from home and 15.9% live independently with supervision. About a fifth of the respondents (19%) live in a long-term care facility and just over a fourth (27%) live with his/her parents or foster parents.
Characteristics of the most frequently travelled route in their leisure time
Each respondent indicated which route he travelled most during his leisure time. Several studies have highlighted the importance of leisure time to disabled people and the significance of these activities – especially if it relates to initiatives in mainstream society - to inclusion and social acceptance (Devine, 2004; Mahon, Mactavish et al., 2000). Social contact and friendship with others would appear to be essential in that regard. Furthermore, people with disabilities or learning difficulties cite enjoyment, taking regular exercise, entertainment, challenges, ‘being engaged in something’ and a change of scene (Lieberman & Stuart, 2002) as reasons for choosing and practising leisure activities. Their participation in (regular) leisure activities may be impeded, however, by practical difficulties, including mobility-related problems. Research by Mahon, Mactavish et al. (2000) and by Wessels, de Witte et al. (2004) reveals that limited mobility hampers participation in a wide range of social activities. As often as not mobility is a pre-requisite for being allowed to join these initiatives or, in any event, a pre-requisite for getting to the place where the activities take place (Wessels, de Witte et al., 2004).
Of particular note was the fact that big cities like Eeklo and Ghent were the most commonly cited as the place of departure or arrival for the most frequently travelled route in their leisure time. This is probably due to the broader range of leisure activities on offer and the wider range of transport options in these big cities, compared to small villages.
Of the respondents in our poll, 75.0% said that it was feasible to use public transport on the most frequently travelled route in their leisure time. According to 17.9%, this was impracticable and 7.1% said they didn’t know.
The times at which this public transport is (or isn’t) available, as reported by the respondents, are given in table 1.
Is public transport feasible ? / Yes – n (%) / No – n (%) / Don’t know - n (%)On weekdays / 38 (77.6) / 1 (2.0) / 10 (20.4)
Sundays and public holiday / 27 (55.1) / 12 (24.5) / 10 (20.4)
Saturdays / 24 (49.0) / 15 (30.6) / 10 (20.4)
School holidays / 21 (42.9) / 18 (36.7) / 10 (20.4)
6h – 10h / 25 (58.1) / 5 (11.6) / 13 (30.2)
10h – 14h / 24 (55.8) / 6 (14.0) / 13 (30.2)
14h – 18h / 22 (51.2) / 8 (18.6) / 13 (30.2)
18h – 22h / 18 (41.9) / 12 (27.9) / 13 (30.2)
22h – 6hu / 1 (2.3) / 29 (67.4) / 13 (30.2)
Table 1: The availability of public transport according to the respondent.
Of particular note here is the high availability of public transport on weekdays from 6 a.m. until approx. 10 p.m. After 10 p.m. and before 6 a.m., the respondents can, by their account, make little or no use of public transport. Furthermore – as the respondents’ answers go to show – little public transport is available either at weekends.
Most of the respondents (73.1%) are capable of looking up public transport timetables by themselves.
To travel from their place of residence to the venue of their leisure activities, takes the respondents, on average, just over an hour (62.9 min.; sd=39.5). This journey time ranges between five minutes and three hours. Which mode of transport the respondents use the most for that, is shown in table 2.
Means of transport / Yes – n (%) / No - n (%)Bus / 29 (44.6) / 36 (55.4)
Someone else’s car / 16 (24.6) / 49 (75.4)
Train / 15 (23.1) / 50 (76.9)
Bus belonging to the long-term care facility / 13 (20.0) / 52 (80.0)
One’s own car / 12 (18.5) / 53 (81.5)
Tram / 11 (16.9) / 54 (83.1)
‘Wigglybus’ / 11 (16.9) / 54 (83.1)
Taxi / 2 (3.1) / 63 (96.9)
Other / 7 (10.8) / 58 (89.2)
Table 2: Overview of the modes of transport used
Almost half (44.6%) of the respondents said they used the bus. A sizeable group (43.1%) stated that they did all (or part of) the trip in (their own or someone else’s) car. Other regularly cited modes of transport are: the train (23.1%), the bus belonging to the long-term care facility (20.0%), the tram (16.9%) and the ‘Wigglybus’[2] (16.9%). The ‘other’ modes of transport used (10.8%) are the ‘Community transport for less mobile residents’, ‘B-Mobile’, the metro, a bicycle and an electric trolley.
To the question whether the respondent would prefer to do the journey – if that were possible – with another means of transport, 64.4% answered in the negative. Among the group who did express a preference for a different mode of transport, a great variety was noticed in what type of transport; someone else’s car, the bus, the ‘Wigglybus’, one’s own car, the train, the taxi and the bicycle were the alternatives from which they could choose.
Attitudes towards public transport
All respondents – irrespective of the mode of transport they use on the aforesaid journey – were asked to give their opinion on the pick-up and set-down points of public transport. And focusing on the following factors, in particular: ‘accessibility’, ‘safety’ and the ‘distance to the destination or to one’s home’.
By and large, the customers are satisfied with the accessibility and (personal security and community) safety of both the pick-up and set-down points of public transport. 76% and 78.3% respectively of the respondents think that the pick-up/set-down point is easy of access. As for the safety of the pick-up point, 83,7% are satisfied while, for the set-down point, the corresponding figure is 80.4%.
We did establish, however, that the respondents were less enthusiastic about the distance between the pick-up and set-down points and their place of residence or destination. This last-mentioned finding applies chiefly to the set-down point which, by 50% of the respondents, is perceived to be too far from their destination.
Table 3 looks at the attitude of the respondents towards several propositions regarding public transport. This attitude was measured on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Contentious statements (score these on a scale from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’) / Mean1. I know how to use public transport. / 3.70
2. I get enough help from the train staff. / 3.39
3. I get enough help from the bus crew. / 3.25
4. I have difficulty getting on and off the tram. / 3.10
5. I have difficulty stepping on and off the bus. / 3.00
6. Taking the train is too expensive. / 2.91
7. From my house to a halt of public transport is too far. / 2.89
8. I have difficulty stepping on and off the train. / 2.89
9. I get enough help from the tram staff. / 2.69
10. Taking the tram is too expensive. / 2.23
11. Taking the bus is too expensive. / 2.17
Table 3: Attitude towards contentious statements regarding public transport
Most respondents stated that they know how to use public transport (mean: 3.70). In general, the respondents spoke (quite) favourably about the support offered to them by staff when stepping on and off the train (mean: 3.39) and the bus (mean 3.25). On the other hand, they are less satisfied with the help they get when stepping on and off the tram (mean: 2.69). These ratios were echoed in another set of questions: To what extent do you have difficulty getting on and off public transport. The tram turned out to be more of a headache (mean: 3.10) than the bus (mean: 3.00) or the train (mean: 2.89). Taking the tram (mean: 2.23) or the bus (mean: 2.17) is considered relatively cheap, while the train (mean: 2.91) is considered a tad dearer.
People with a visual and physical handicap were more inclined to agree with proposition 1 than people with a mental, multiple or ‘other’ handicap. Contentious statements 4, 5 and 8 are, by people with physical, multiple and ‘other’ handicaps, endorsed more strongly compared to people with mental and visual handicaps. On the other hand, people with physical and multiple disabilities were less inclined to agree with proposition 9 compared to people with visual or mental handicaps. As for contentious statements 10 and 11, we found that people with physical and multiple (and in the case of proposition 11, and ‘other’) handicaps were more inclined to concur than people with a visual and mental handicap.