Concrete Paving Slabs for Comfort of Movement of Mobility-Impaired Pedestrians-A Survey

Abstract

People with locomotion difficulties encounter many barriers in a pedestrian environment. Pavement quality has been shown to substantially affect pedestrian satisfaction in general, and its optimal design may contribute to reducing the stigma put on people with impairments. Our research involved a survey assessing perception and attitudes towards pavement quality and characteristics for pedestrian comfort. The classic correlation of the variables based on contingency tables was used to analyse data and to test whether respondents' perceptions depended on certain profile features. The completion of the statistical inference was the use of advanced algorithms of the correspondence analysis method. The relationships between the variables were assessed optionally using the chi² test. The study results revealed desirable parameters and features of paving surfaces. People who use manual wheelchairs and declare limb loss prefer medium- and large-format concrete pavers with smooth finishing and no bevelling. People with skeletal abnormalities or peripheral neuropathy prefer concrete slabs and surfaces made of small- or medium-sized panels arranged in a regular pattern, made of smooth non-slip concrete with narrow joints. Further laboratory tests are necessary to investigate whether increased water permeability of pavements constructed on eco-friendly base layers can curb damage to the pavement surface and provide long-term durability.

Keywords: concrete paver; mobility-impaired people; pavement characteristics; pedestrian comfort.

Figure 1

Survey recipients’ response to mailing (source: Avalon Foundation).

Figure 2

Respondents’ profile (n = 155) (source: processed by the authors).

Figure 3

Various combinations of pavement surface subjected to perception analysis in the survey (A)—small-sized concrete paver, (B)—mineral surface, (C)—stone pavement, (D)—medium-format concrete paver, (E)—large-format concrete slab combined with granite paving pattern, F—large-format concrete slab. (source: processed by the authors).

Figure 4

What problems do you most often encounter in public spaces? (source: processed by the authors).

Figure 5

Sequence chart illustrating the numbers by type of a motor disability and the equipment used for pedestrian circulation and the most common pavement damage encountered (source: processed by the authors).

Figure 6

Which type of pavement do you consider to be the most comfortable for walking? (source: processed by the authors).

Figure 7

Correspondence analysis (source: own work). Key: large-format concrete slab (L-S CS), small format jointless concrete slab (N-JC), asphalt (B), small format slabs with joints (JC), stabilised mineral surface (CSCS), earthen pathway. Key: Colours indicate on grouping depending on the type of equipment used for moving with the preferences of the given surface: blue—wheelchair (manual or electric); red—crutches; green—walking frame.

Figure 8

Sequence chart illustrating the comfort of pedestrian circulation (source: processed by the authors). Key: (A) large-format concrete slab, (B) asphalt, (C) stabilised mineral surface, (D) earthen pathway, (E) small format slabs with joints, (F) small format jointless concrete slab.

Figure 9

Evaluation of the optimal pedestrian surface features (source: processed by the authors).

Figure 10

Percentage analysis grouped according to the comfort of pedestrian circulation on a concrete pavement (source: processed by the authors).

Figure 11

Correspondence analysis (source: processed by the authors).

Figure 12

Concrete paving block patterns (A–F) analysed in correspondence with the analysis in Figure 11 (source: processed by the authors).