Your City, Your Say survey research
Search

More results...

Generic filters
Search

More results...

Generic filters

Rights of Way Improvement Plan

Summary

  • The majority of respondents feel the document is neither easy or difficult to understand (‘Neutral’ – 57%)
  • An equal proportion of respondents find the document ‘easy’ or ‘difficult’ to understand (21% each)
  • The most common theme for why respondents felt the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) document was difficult to understand is that it needs to have more images or graphics , particularly more detailed maps and graphics to break up the large bodies of information
  • Other common themes relating to difficulty in understanding the ROWIP document are that there is too much information to take in (20%) and too much technical jargon (20%), with some respondents requesting an accompanying summary document or summary bullet points
  • Nearly half of respondents who left general further comments mentioned that the ROWIP document could be clearer and called for more information to be provided about Public Rights of Way (44%)
  • Other respondents have concerns about the safety and accessibility of Rights of Ways (19%) or mention that more priority should be given to walkers and cyclists in the ROWIP (17%)

Overall, how easy or difficult was the ROWIP document to understand?

Base: Total sample (698)

This chart shows that
2% of respondents found the Rights of Way Improvement Plan very easy to understand
19% of respondents found the Rights of Way Improvement Plan easy to understand
57% of respondents are neutral on understanding the Rights of Way Improvement Plan
17% of respondents found the Rights of Way Improvement Plan difficult to understand
4% of respondents found the Rights of Way Improvement Plan very difficult to understand

Reasons why respondents find the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) document difficult to understand

Base: Respondents who find the ROWIP document difficult to understand (101)

This table shows the most common themes of why respondents found the Rights of Way Improvement Plan document difficult to understand:
22% state that the document needs more graphics
20% state that the document has too much information to take in
20% state that the document has too much technical jargon
9% state that the document is confusing overall
9% state that the document seems unfinished

wdt_ID Themes Percentage (%)
1 Needs more graphics 22
2 Too much information to take in 20
3 Too much technical jargon 20
4 Confusing overall 9
5 Seems unfinished 9

“Landmark pictures would be useful as well as a list of the numbers by names and area. Also, things could be better explained by simplifying with bullet points.”

“There is no map showing where the rights of way actually are. It is far too wordy.”

“A summary would have been helpful; I would have liked a quick outline of what’s there and what’s proposed; with the detail then available to digest at my leisure.”

“An incomplete document. Loads of missing images.”

Further comments on Rights of Way Improvement (ROWIP) document

Base: Respondents leaving further comments (162)

This table shows other comments by respondents regarding the Rights of Way Improvement Plan document
44% state that the document needs more / clearer information
19% have concerns about safety and accessibility
17% state that the wrong groups are prioritised
9% want improved upkeep / maintenance
8% state improvements to cycle lanes are needed

wdt_ID Themes Percentage (%)
1 More / clearer information needed 44
2 Concerns about safety and accessibility 19
3 Wrong groups are prioritised 17
4 Improved upkeep / maintenance 9
5 Improvements to cycle lanes are needed 8

“It would have been nice to have seen some of the proposed images to be inserted, even if they just only drafted up at present.”

“Regular promotion of the existence of Rights of Ways. To my shame, I knew almost nothing of them until I read the plan.”

“Needs to be more ambitious and provide better connectivity between existing PRoW. Greater priority needs to be given to walkers and cyclists like in Amsterdam.”