DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION ACCESS ROUTES AND RECREATION TRAILS : A PILOT STUDY

Denise A. Chesney, Peter W. Axelson, and Edward J. Hamilton* Beneficial Designs, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA *National Center on Accessibility, Martinsville, IN

ABSTRACT

Design standards for outdoor recreation access routes (ORARs) and recreation trails have been proposed by the Access Board. These include specifications for grade, cross slope, and change in level for four degrees of access. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine if the grade and cross slope specifications for each degree of access category (easier, moderate, difficult, most difficult) matched the perceived level of difficulty. Twelve subjects representing a spectrum of physical abilities completed five performance tests to assess physical fitness and skill, performed maximum grade and cross slope tests, subjectively rated the level of difficulty of 36Êdifferent grade/cross slope combinations, and subjectively rated four ORARs/trails. In summary, subjects were capable of negotiating much steeper grades and cross slopes than previously expected, indicating that the proposed design standards are too strict. Based upon the results of this research and numerous trail assessments, new design specifications have been recommended. These results support the need for further research to re-evaluate the design specifications for ORARs and trails.

BACKGROUND

Current ADA Accessibility Guidelines address access to and in buildings and facilities in highly developed areas. Access to outdoor environments is equally important to people of all abilities who desire to participate in recreation and leisure activities. For this reason, the Access Board (US ATBCB) created a Recreation Access Advisory Committee and charged them with developing recommendations for accessi bility guidelines for recreational facilities and outdoor developed areas. These recommendations included design standards for outdoor recreation access routes (ORARs) and recreation trails. The results of 10ÊUniversal Trail Assessments which included objective measurements of grade, cross slope, width and obstacle height were closely examined [1,2,3]. Using this information, the committee developed specific requirements for grade, cross slope, width and small level changes for three degrees of access: easier, moderate, and difficult. ORARs and trails exceeding the difficult category were considered "Most Difficult." In July of 1994, the Advisory Committee submitted a report to the Access Board which contained the written recommendations [4]. Due to the time constraints set forth by the Access Board, it was unfeasible for the committee to conduct research to validate all of the standards proposed for ORARs and recreation trails.

1994 Proposed Designs Standards for Outdoor Recreation Access Routes

1994 Proposed Designs Standards for Recreation Trails

RESEARCH QUESTION

The long term goal of this research plan is to develop appropriate guidelines for ORARs and recreation trails. This pilot research study was conducted in order to test an initial protocol on a small subject group, and to evaluate the need for further research on the accessibility guidelines. The main research question of this pilot study was: Do the "degree of access" categories (easier, moderate, difficult, most difficult) for grade and cross slope match the level of difficulty perceived by persons negotiating that particular environment?

METHOD

Twelve subjects (9 males; 3 females), ranging in age from 28 to 72 years (mean of 41 years), participated in the study. The subject group included: six with spinal cord injury, one with cerebral palsy, one individual who was blind, three weak ambulatory individuals, and one without a disability. Subjects used assistive devices during testing: eight used manual wheelchairs, one used a navigation cane, one used crutches, and one used braces and muscle stimulation.

Subject Performance Tests

Each subject completed five tests to determine his/her level of physical fitness and skill: 1) PWC170: Determined the physical work capacity at a heart rate of 170 beats/min using an arm ergometer. 2) Handgrip strength test: Measured maximum force with a Jamar handgrip dynamometer. 3) Speed and muscular endurance test: Determined peak output and total output over a 30sec period at 120 revs/min on an arm ergometer. 4) Reaction time and acceleration test: Measured the minimum time required to travel up a 2 meter standard ramp from a standing start. 5) Curb climb test: Determined maximum step height negotiated.

Tests of Surfaces

Subjects used a difficulty rating scale to document their perceptions of the difficulty experienced in traversing various grades and cross slopes (Figure1). Each subject walked/propelled across a flat surface and was told that this represented a "1" on the difficulty rating scale. The maximum cross slope and maximum grade that the subject was capable of negotiating were determined. Subjects were told that their personal maximum results represented a "10" on the difficulty rating scale. Each subject then walked/propelled across the adjustable ramp and difficulty ratings were obtained for grades of 0%, 5%, 8%, 10%, 14%, and 20% with cross slopes of 0%, 2%, 3%, 5%, 8%, and 12% (36 total grade/cross slope combinations).

ORAR/Trail Assessment Each subject traveled across four different outdoor paths and rated the effort required, using both the level of difficulty rating scale and the rating of perceived exertion scale [5] (Figures1,2).

Figure 1. Level of Difficulty Rating Scale   Figure 2. Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale

1

2  Easy

3

4  Moderate

5

6  Difficult

7

8  Most Difficult

9

10  Extreme

Figure2. Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale

6

7  Very, very light

8

9  Very light

10

11  Fairly light

12

13  Somewhat hard

14

15  Hard

16

17 Very hard

18

19  Very, very hard

20

RESULTS

Subject Ramp Skills

Results of the tests used to determine the limits of the navigational skills of the subjects are shown below.

Ramp Skills of Subjects

Difficulty Rating vs. Ramp Configuration

Based upon the average difficulty ratings of the 12 subjects, grades of up to 8% with cross slopes of up to 12% were rated as "Easy." Grades of 10% and 14% were also considered "Easy" if the cross slope was 8% and 5% or less, respectively. Grades of 10% with cross slopes of 12% and grades of 14% with cross slopes of 8% or 12% were considered "Moderate," as were grades of 20% with cross slopes of 8% or less. A 20% grade with 12% cross slope was considered "Difficult." Overall, there was no significant difference between the difficulty ratings for 2% and 3% cross slope regardless of grade. All other comparisons between groups of grades or cross slopes were significantly different from each other (p<0.05).

Factors that Influence Difficulty Ratings The subjects' difficulty rating for a standard ramp was the only variable which was significantly correlated (p<0.05) with the difficulty rating for all grade and cross slope configurations. Other ramp and curb performance variables (2 m ramp time, maximum grade, maximum cross slope, maximum curb height) were also significantly correlated (p<0.05) with the difficulty ratings for cross slopes of 3% or greater and for grades of 10% or greater. Physical fitness variables (PWC170, muscular endurance, handgrip) were not related to difficulty ratings for either grade or cross slope, except for grades of 20% which were significantly correlated to aerobic fitness (r=0.38, p=0.01) and anaerobic power (r=0.24, p<0.05). Wheelchair users tended to give higher ratings (4.8) for a 12% cross slope than those who were ambulatory (3.9). Subjects with disabilities resulting from cerebral palsy or spinal cord injury who use wheelchairs tended to have higher difficulty ratings at 5% (p=0.08), 8% (p=0.07) and 12% (p<0.05) cross slope settings. Females also tended to have higher difficulty ratings than males when the cross slope was 8% (F=4.0, M=3.4) or 12% (F=4.9, M=4.3).

Grade difficulty ratings were significantly influenced by gender, disability and assistive device use, but not by perceived fitness relative to peers. Females rated the grades of 10% or greater significantly more difficult than the male subjects (p<0.05). The subject who was blind had low ratings at all grades. Wheelchair users also had consistently high difficulty ratings at each grade.

Ratings of ORARs/Trails For all four outdoor paths, average difficulty ratings and ratings of perceived exertion assigned by the subjects were lower than the trail degree of access categories as determined by the 1994 proposed standards.

Ratings of Outdoor Paths

DISCUSSION

The results of this research study have clearly demon strated the need to re-evaluate the design standards for outdoor recreation access routes and recreation trails proposed by the Outdoor Recreation Area Advisory Committee in 1994. Based upon the results of this pilot study, new recommendations were developed (see tables below). The new 1995 recommendations for recreation trails consist of four categories and a fifth "Extreme" category for trails that exceed the "Most Difficult" specifications. The main difference between these recommendations and those proposed by the Advisory Committee in 1994 is found in the cross slope values. Cross slope values are significantly higher in the new 1995 recommendations, while grade values are only slightly higher.

1995 Research Outcome Recommendations for Outdoor Recreation Access Routes

1995 Research Outcome Recommendations for Recreation Trails

Future research will include extensive subject evaluations of outdoor environments with various conditions (grade, cross slope, obstacles, surface, and length) and objective measurements of the work required to negotiate these environments. The results of this study will be used to define the protocol for this larger research study.

REFERENCES

1. Axelson, P., Chelini, D., "Inventory and Computerized Mapping of Trails: The First Step Towards Access," Proceedings of the RESNA '93 Annual Conference, June 1993. 2. Chesney, D.A., Axelson, P.W., "Assessment of Outdoor Environments for Accessibility," Proceedings of the RESNA '94 Annual Conference, June 1994, pp. 278-280. 3. Beneficial Designs, Inc., Universal Trail Assess-ment Coordinator Workshop Training Manual, PAX Press, 1995. 4. Recreation Access Advisory Committee, Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines: Recreational Facilities and Outdoor Developed Areas, US ATBCB, July 1994. 5. Borg, B., Ottoson (Eds.), The Perception of Exercise in Physical Work, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, MacMillan Press, 1986.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by the National Center on Accessibility in Martinsville, Indiana, a program of Indiana University in cooperation with the National Park Service Office on Accessibility. Denise A. Chesney, M.E. Beneficial Designs, Inc. 5858 Empire Grade, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 tel: (408) 429-8447 fax: (408)423-8450 email: pax@netcom.com Design Specifications for...