The potential of low traffic measures for healthy active ageing

ABSTRACT

Being and remaining active is reported to be positively associated with healthy ageing, though many older adults are not as active as they would like to be. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have been identified as a possible solution to traffic-related activity barriers. This study aimed to explore this possibility, and the potential for these methods to support active ageing. 20 older adults aged between 60 and 91 (80 per cent women) took part in focus groups across low and high traffic areas. Discussions centred on experiences of staying active and perceptions of low traffic measures for facilitating activity. Six participants then took part in walking interviews across two areas, which explored some of the barriers and enablers to staying active. Staying active was found to be particularly important, though many participants suggested that a number of environmental barriers prevent them from being as active as they would like to be, in line with previous research. Many struggled to recognise the potential of low traffic measures, suggesting that there is a lack of consideration for older people within the planning process, particularly those with mobility issues. Future studies should focus on those with mobility issues in order to explore range of needs.

KEYWORDS:

• Active ageing
• walking
• barriers
• enablers
• low traffic measures
• qualitative

Introduction

‘Active ageing’, a development of the ‘healthy ageing’ concept, refers to the process of facilitating and maintaining participation in everyday life to enhance quality of life in later years (World Health Organisation [WHO], 2002). A key aspect of this involves being and remaining active with age. Walking behaviour in particular – reported as the most common and preferred form of physical activity (PA) among older adults (Hovell et al., 1989; Kahlert & Schlicht, 2015) – is positively associated with active ageing. Regular walking, for example, is associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death (Brown et al., 2012; Hamer et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2004), as well as lower levels of depression and fatigue (Simonsick et al., 2005). Walking within the local area also increases opportunities for social connection and related benefits (Rogers et al., 2011; Tripathi & Samanta, 2023); reciprocally, local social participation is found to be associated with increased walking (Kubota et al., 2020; Richard et al., 2008).

It is recommended that older adults (aged 65 and over), where able, undertake moderate intensity activity, such as brisk walking, for at least 150 minutes per week (National Health Service [NHS], 2021). However, research conducted in Finland suggests many older adults experience unmet PA need (Rantakokko et al., 2010), meaning that they ‘would like to be more active than what [they are] capable of’ (Eronen et al., 2014, p. 106). In a similar study by Leinonen et al. (2007, p. 161), two-thirds of participants reported wanting to increase their level of PA; 86 per cent when considering those with limited mobility (Leinonen et al., 2007, p. 161). As well as personal and social factors (Moschny et al., 2011), the local environment has been found to have a significant impact on older adults’ PA engagement (Cerin et al., 2017; Kahlert & Schlicht, 2015; Ståhl et al., 2008). In particular, fears associated with having to navigate traffic within the local area have been found to be directly associated with lower rates of walking among older people, for both transportation and recreational purposes (King et al., 2000; Van Cauwenberg et al., 2012). Speeding and noisy traffic, for example, contribute to decreased walking by creating the perception of busy, dangerous roads (Department for Infrastructure, 2020; Rantakokko et al., 2010). Pedestrian infrastructure such as traffic signals and pedestrian crossings are considered particularly important in semi-urban areas with busy roads, though older people commonly report that crossings do not provide them sufficient time to cross safely, especially when they have mobility issues (Langlois et al., 1997; Michael et al., 2006). Hou et al. (2020) reported that unsignalised pedestrian crossings were associated with a lower probability of daily walking for Singaporean older adults.

It is evident that a safe and supportive walking environment is vital for encouraging PA among older adults (Brunelli et al., 2023; Cerin et al., 2017; Tiraphat et al., 2017), as reflected in the WHO’s (2007) ‘Global Age-friendly Cities’ Guide. The guide, developed as a framework for encouraging active ageing, identifies eight key domains for consideration including outdoor spaces and buildings, which places specific emphasis on meeting the needs of older pedestrians by advocating for a safe and accessible pedestrian experience (World Health Organisation [WHO], 2007). Reducing levels, or at least speed, of traffic may be a means of supporting increased PA, by improving perceptions of safety (Yen et al., 2014). A number of schemes have been developed with this in mind; ‘Silver Zones’, specifically tailored to older pedestrians, have been implemented in many Asian cities, with varying levels of success (Chng et al., 2022; Choi et al., 2018). In the UK, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) have been developed, with the aim of increasing PA and reducing traffic levels, particularly within residential areas (Sustrans, 2020a). Sometimes referred to as ‘active neighbourhoods’, these measures aim to increase safety for those walking, wheeling, and cycling within a defined area through implementation of a combination of traffic reduction and traffic calming measures including: modal filters (bollards or planters to stop vehicle access); pocket parks (two sets of filters to create a pedestrianised area); bus gates; and one-way streets (Sustrans, 2020a). Waltham Forest’s ‘Mini Holland scheme’ – a LTN developed in 2015 (Aldred and Goodman, 2021) – is often cited as the first of its kind in the UK (Wall, 2020), though low traffic measures have been implemented around the UK since the early 1970s (Sustrans, 2020b). Primarily, these developments centred in and around London, though in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the introduction of many measures to increase the space available to pedestrians, to facilitate physical distancing while walking (Aldred et al., 2019, 2021; Sustrans, 2020a). Within Scotland, for example, the Spaces for People programme saw the Scottish Government provide funding and support for the implementation of emergency measures to make local communities safer for pedestrians and cyclists, in line with social distancing guidelines (Sustrans, 2020a). Follow-up consultation resulted in these measures being made permanent in some key areas across the country, primarily in city centre areas, though many measures were removed following the end of lockdown.

There is a growing body of research on LTNs and their impact on communities, public health and safety, and the environment. Focusing on the Waltham Forest area, Laverty et al. (2021) estimated that general travel – walking, cycling, and driving – became around three to four times safer as a result of LTN measures, with a significant reduction in vehicle-related injuries. Increased perceptions of safety may also contribute to increased levels of PA, with research suggesting that the implementation of LTN measures was associated with an increase in weekly active travel, an average of 41 minutes per week after one year (Aldred et al., 2019), and 35 minutes per week after two years (Aldred et al., 2021). General perceptions, however, do not align with these findings. A 2021 study for the Department of Transport (Logan et al., 2021), found that residents had differing opinions on the impact of LTN measures: 44 per cent of residents agreed that LTNs had increased road safety, while 37 per cent disagreed (Logan et al., 2021, p. 30). This same study found that almost half of respondents disagreed that LTN measures had encouraged people to switch to active modes of transport, though this was most common among drivers.

It is important, however, to acknowledge the disproportionate effects that LTNs may have on certain groups. The Pave the Way report (Transport for All, 2021) explored the impact of LTNs on disabled people, highlighting the inaccessible nature of active travel for those with disabilities; poorly maintained pavements and streetspaces not designed with disabilities in mind can make it particularly difficult to walk or wheel within their local area. For example, route changes and diversions can represent a significant barrier to many people with disabilities, which can ultimately limit alternatives to driving (Transport for All, 2021). Discouraging car use may have a detrimental impact on disabled people, not just those for whom vehicle transport is a necessity, making simple journeys exhausting and physically painful, or in some cases impossible (Transport for All, 2021). The prevalence of disability increases with age (Sustrans, Living Streets and Arup, 2022) which raises concerns about the impact of LTNs on older people. Research also shows that older people have become increasingly reliant on motor vehicles for transport, with driving reported as being the most common form of transport for older people in the UK (Holley-Moore & Creighton, 2015). Similar trends have been found in the United States; Strogatz et al. (2020, p. 90) reported that over 75 per cent of respondents reported driving as being highly important, and over half of those living in rural areas reported high potential impacts of driving cessation (Strogatz et al., 2020, p. 90). For example, declines in mental and physical health, as well as reduced participation in ‘outside activities’, have been found to be associated with driving cessation (Chihuri et al., 2016). When planning and implementing LTNs, it is important to account for those unable to engage in active travel, and for whom driving is essential.

At present, 19 per cent of the UK’s population is aged 65 and over, a percentage that only predicted to increase over the next decade (Centre for Ageing Better, 2022, p. 1; Office for National Statistics, 2022, Section 5). Given the level of unmet PA need among this section of the population, it is vital to consider possible solutions to facilitate PA, such as LTNs. Findings from Transport for All (2021) raise significant concerns about the impact of LTNs on older people, though that study focused only on older people as part of a wider group of disabled people. There is a need for research focused on the impact of LTNs on older people specifically. As such, the aim of this study was to explore experiences of being and remaining active with age, as well as perceptions of the impact of traffic and low traffic measures as a possible solution, in order to assess the perceived potential of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods to support healthy and active ageing.

Methods

There were two main parts to this study: 1) focus groups, and 2) follow-up walking interviews.

Participants

There were five main case study areas involved in this study, identified through digital traffic maps and local authority documentation. The decision to include areas of both low and high traffic was made to allow comparison and consider the potential of LTNs to support healthy and active ageing. Although LTNs were the focus of this study, it proved difficult to identify formal LTNs while avoiding proposed areas where extensive consultation had already been conducted. As such, the decision was made to focus on an area with experience of low traffic measures, even though these were not currently in place. One area, Dennistoun, Glasgow, was chosen as it was a site for Spaces for People measures; modal filters had been introduced to enable physical distancing along residential streets and prevent parking outside the main primary school building. Many of these measures had since been removed, though one-way systems remained in place in the identified streets. For the purposes of this study, Dennistoun is referred to as a low traffic area. The four other case study areas were considered to be high traffic: Slateford, Edinburgh; Camelon, Falkirk; East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire; and Musselburgh, East Lothian. The chosen areas covered a broad range of socio-economic levels, based on the Scottish index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) ranking (Scottish Government, 2020; Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2020). Table 1 provides details of case study areas.

Table 1. Case study sites.

Neighbourhood type	Area	Streets	Type of street	SIMD decile
Low traffic neighbourhood	Dennistoun, Glasgow	Whitehill Street	Residential (connected to main road)	5/6
		Armadale Street
		Craigielea Street
		Meadowpark Street
High traffic neighbourhood	Slateford, Edinburgh	Hutchison Avenue	Residential	6
		Hutchison Medway
		Hutchison Road	Residential (connected to retail park)
		Hutchison Crossway	Residential (connected to main road)
		Moat Street
		Moat Drive
	Musselburgh, East Lothian	Inveresk Road	Main road	3
		Dalrymple Loan
		Mansfield Road	Residential (connected to main road)
		Mansfield Avenue
		Mansfield Place
	Camelon, Falkirk	Baird Street	Residential	2
		Brown Street
		Stark Avenue
		Carmuirs Avenue
		Carmuirs Street	Residential (connected to main road)
		Maisonhouse Road
		Watling Street
	East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire	Windward Road	Residential (connects two main roads)	4/5
		Dunedin Drive

SIMD = Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation; lower deciles represent more deprived areas.

A total of 20 community-dwelling participants were recruited using a purposive sampling method, with the following inclusion criteria: aged 60 or over; retired or no longer in full-time employment; and currently living within an area of interest. This study aimed to explore older people’s use of their environment in everyday life, hence the decision to exclude employment-related activity associated with those still in full-time employment. The focus group sample consisted of 16 women and four men, aged between 60 and 91 (with a mean age of 74) (Table 2).

Table 2. Focus group participant sample demographics.

Variable	N (%)	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Female	16 (80)
Male	4 (20)
Age		74	8.3	60	91
Driver status
Yes	10 (50)
No	10 (50)
Level of mobility
Fair	4 (20)
Good	5 (25)
Excellent	11 (55)
Identified mobility impairment	3 (15)

Participants were initially recruited for focus groups through engagement with community groups and older people’s organisations, flyers and social media platforms Facebook and Twitter. Following these sessions, participants were asked whether they would be willing to participate in a subsequent walking interview within the area, as a follow-up to focus group discussions. A total of 6 participants took part in walking interviews. All participants within the walking group sample were women, with ages ranging from 62 to 80 (with a mean age of 71) (Table 3).

Table 3. Walking interview sample demographics.

Variable	N (%)	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Female	6 (100)
Age		71	6.1	62	80
Driver status
Yes	3 (50)
No	3 (50)
Level of mobility
Good	4 (67)
Excellent	2 (33)
Identified mobility impairment	1 (17)

Design and procedure

Focus groups

A total of six focus group sessions were conducted. Focus group numbers ranged between four and 10 participants, in line with existing literature (Barbour, 2008; Morgan, 1997), though sessions also included one-to-one interviews and small group sessions due to recruitment uptake. These sessions were conducted in all five areas, in a variety of community venues such as church halls and community centres. Sessions were relatively unstructured, guided by a focus group schedule with open-ended questions which prompted group discussions on experiences of being and remaining active with age, perceptions of traffic, and the potential of LTNs to tackle associated challenges (Kruegar & Casey, 2014). All sessions followed the same focus group schedule. Sessions lasted between 38 minutes, and one hour 35 minutes, influenced by the size of group (mean length of one hour 9 minutes) (Table 4). Discussions were audio recorded with participants’ consent, and these recording were subsequently transcribed verbatim.

Table 4. Focus group details by area.

Traffic level	Area	Type of session	Number of participants	Length of session
High traffic	Slateford, Edinburgh	Focus group	10	1 hour 35 minutes
	Musselburgh, East Lothian	One-to-one interview	1	1 hour
	Camelon, Falkirk	One-to-one interview	1	38 minutes
	East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire	Small group	2	1 hour 25 minutes
Low traffic	Dennistoun, Glasgow	Small group	2	1 hour 18 minutes
	Dennistoun, Glasgow	Focus group	4	1 hour

Participants were first asked to consider what being active means to them and the importance of this, as well as any factors that may help or hinder their level of PA. Participants were asked to share their perceptions of the local environment – traffic in particular – and the impact that this has on their level of activity. Photo elicitation was used to generate discussions around perceptions of low traffic measures, and the potential relevance of these measures in each area. Participants were presented with four examples: a one-way street; a bus gate; modal filters; and a pocket park, each of which was described in detail.

Walking interviews

Walking interviews, or ‘go-alongs’ (Carpiano, 2009) were conducted in one low traffic area, Dennistoun, Glasgow, and one high traffic area, Slateford, Edinburgh. A total of six participants took part over five sessions (two participants took part together). Walking interviews were considered to replicate what was being explored – walking – and provided the researcher the chance to experience, to an extent, the local environment as the participant did; essentially, ‘to walk a mile in their shoes’. These walking interviews allowed for issues within focus group discussions to be explored in more depth, with the decision to focus on two main areas being made to allow for a deeper exploration of these issues (Evans & Jones, 2011). Participants were asked to consider features of the local environment that work to help or prevent them from staying active, and to lead the walk with this in mind (King & Woodroffe, 2017). Participants were also asked to suggest how the local area may be improved to enable more PA. During each walk, photographs were taken of features highlighted to be of interest, as a means of adding context to discussions (King & Woodroffe, 2017; Pink, 2007). Each walk lasted around 30 to 40 minutes, with each route tracked via GPS-tracking app, Strava (Strava, Inc., 2023). Sessions were audio recorded using wireless lapel microphones with participants’ consent, and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Participants only took part in walking interviews if they reported being able to safely walk for the required time.

Data analyses

Focus group sessions and walking interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (RTA), as developed by Braun and Clarke (2006), through which the researcher presents their own interpretation of the data. Each transcript was analysed manually using an inductive approach, with the data guiding codes being generated. Focus group sessions and walking interviews were analysed separately to begin with.

Analysis began with focus group transcripts; two researchers separately analysed the first transcript before comparing codes to reach consensus. The first author then analysed the remaining focus group transcripts. Codes were compared to identify any crossover, with similar codes merged to create sub-themes. These sub-themes were then grouped to create key themes. The same process was adopted with the walking interview transcripts. Similar themes and sub-themes were produced, and the decision was made to combine the analysis for focus group and walking interview data. Relevant quotations were identified for each sub-theme, along with supporting photographs from walking interviews. A table of themes was generated, and these key themes and associated quotations were reviewed in conjunction with the two other researchers in order to ensure credibility of the initial analysis and achieve consensus.

Within the Findings section, relevant quotations are included from both focus groups and walking interviews. Each quotation is labelled accordingly, and areas made identifiable within the participant identifier. For example, ‘SF1-FG’ refers to Participant One in the Slateford focus group, whilst ‘DN1-WI’ refers to Participant One in the Dennistoun walking interviews. Table 5 highlights abbreviations for all areas.

Table 5. Participant identifier label abbreviations.

Area	Abbreviation
Slateford	SF (e.g. SF1-FG or SF1-WI)
Musselburgh	MB (e.g. MB1-FG)
Camelon	CM (e.g. CM1-FG)
East Kilbride	EK (e.g. EK1-FG)
Dennistoun	DN (e.g. DN1-FG or DN1-WI)

Findings

Through thematic analysis, six key themes emerged (Table 5). These themes were grouped under two overarching headings: 1) experiences of being and remaining active with age, encompassing general experiences of staying active, including specific barriers and enablers; and 2) the potential of low traffic measures, covering perceptions of low traffic measures as well as possible solutions. The complete list of themes and sub-themes can be found in Table 6.

Table 6. Key themes and sub-themes.

Theme	Sub-themes	Description
Staying active in later life	Walking for leisure	Some participants incorporated walking for leisure into their daily routine, as a way of maintaining their mobility.
	Walking for purpose	The majority expressed that they often walk for purpose, either for travel or out of necessity, like walking their dog.
	Importance of staying active in later life	Staying active was essential for many, who highlighted physical, mental and social benefits. For others, staying active was less of a priority.
Enablers to staying active in later life	Accessibility	Access to green space as well as good public transport were identified as key enablers.
	Access to car	Whilst the car was seen as a luxury for some, others argued that they could not live without out, particularly in poorly connected areas. Those who lacked independence were seen to be at a disadvantage.
Barriers to staying active in later life	Physical environment	Poor maintenance of the environment, e.g. potholes, pavements, drains, made walking particularly stressful.
	Lack of pedestrian infrastructure	Poor street design makes navigating traffic difficult and unsafe. Sharing streetspaces with cyclists represents another issue.
	Age	Age-related mobility issues limited participants’ level of activity.
	Impact of Covid	Covid-19 lockdown had a significant impact on available services, as well as levels of confidence.
	Poor accessibility	In some areas, lack of public transport and facilities made getting out difficult, particularly for those without a car.
	Feeling unsafe	Lack of street lighting made going out at night particularly frightening. In one area, participants did not go out at night, through fear of harm from others.
Perceived impacts of traffic	Traffic levels	High levels of traffic were identified in all areas. Lack of consideration from drivers made navigating this traffic particularly stressful.
	Parking	Overcrowding was seen as result of increased reliance on cars. Inconsiderate parking created significant issues for access, particularly for those with mobility issues.
Older adults’ concerns about low traffic measures	Impact of low traffic measures on traffic levels	Many argued that traffic would not be reduced but simply shifted to another area. Drivers suggested that these measures would negatively impact them.
	Reaction from drivers	There was a sense that drivers do not adhere to current restrictions, so low traffic measures would not be effective. Changing behaviour would require a complete change of mindset.
	Lack of consideration for older people	Some argued that active travel does not benefit older people, particularly those with poor mobility.
Maximising effectiveness of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods	Low impact measures	Any support for low traffic measures focused on lower impact measures such as one-way streets and bus gates. It was argued that these measures need to be put in place with monitoring devices such as cameras in order to make them effective.
	Improved active travel infrastructure	Improved pedestrian infrastructure and investment in public transport was seen as essential to promoting staying active.
	Importance of planning and consultation	Existing measures were said to be poorly planned, so engagement with the public was considered key.

Experiences of being and remaining active with age

Staying active in later life

Participants reported general experiences of staying active, focusing primarily on the purpose and importance of doing so as an older person. Whilst focus was on PA, for many participants, staying active was more about getting out independently: ‘just getting out and about, you know, walking and using public transport and things’ (SF8-FG). Overall, ‘staying active’ and ‘getting out’ were often conflated, with participants focusing primarily on maintaining independence. The most common form of activity was walking, but a few participants also reported engaging in cycling or exercise classes. A specific distinction was made between walking for leisure and walking for purpose.

Walking for leisure

Around one-third of participants expressed that they often walk for leisure, as a way of maintaining their mobility. For many of these participants, walking was incorporated into a daily or weekly routine, which they highlighted was particularly important on days where they had no other plans:

SF6:

We walk round the courtyard. We just go round …

SF9:

10 times, is it?

SF6:

5!

SF5:

We do 5 and then we sit down and put the world to rights, and then we do another 5! And the rain doesn’t hurt! Does that help then, to have a routine and know you’re going to go out?

All:

Yes!

SF5:

Especially when you don’t do anything else on that day. I mean, for instance, if we go to the [club], we might not go [for a walk] because we know we’re going [out] later on. (SF-FG)

Walking for purpose

The majority of participants, however, expressed that they often walk for a specific purpose. For some, walking was incorporated into their daily routine as a means of travel, in conjunction with or instead of other modes of transport, though this was often weather dependent. For those who did not drive, walking was often seen as the only travel option, particularly in areas with poor access to public transport: ‘it’s sorer, but I just get my steps in, just usually walk places’ (DN1-FG). Engagement in social activity, such as church groups, was often cited as a key reason for walking. A few participants were dog owners, so walking was a necessary part of their daily routine. These participants acknowledged that having a dog had a positive impact on their level of activity and, without the dog, they most likely would not have the motivation to walk:

If I didn’t have the dog, would I still go out for walks? Probably not actually, probably not! Having a dog, walking them comes with the territory. No, it’s … You need to have a purpose for moving about. (EK2-FG)

Importance of staying active for older adults

Most participants expressed that staying active had physical benefits, referring specifically to improved general wellbeing. A few highlighted that this was even more important as one gets older, to maintain mobility levels.

No, I think when you’re older it is important to try and keep moving, y’know, if you’re able, not everybody is … But even just a short walk. But if you’re going up to [the supermarket], you could walk there and get the bus back, because you’re carrying, y’know, there’s still a … You’re still moving! (SF9-WI)

Around one-quarter of participants suggested that staying active also had positive mental effects. For those living in densely populated areas near the city, being out walking was seen as a way to ‘clear their head’. For others, walking was a means of staying socially active, providing an opportunity to meet and interact with people, which, in turn, was seen to have a positive impact on their mental wellbeing. This was particularly important for those who were living alone and at risk of isolation:

I think if you’re living on your own, which I think a lot of older people are on their own, I think you need to get out for your mental health, or you can get quite depressed, if you’re in all day and you’ve nobody to talk to, y’know. (SF10-FG)

For others, staying active was less of a priority. One participant expressed that, while they recognised that they may not be as active as they should be, they felt that enjoying life was more important than simply staying active:

I’ve just got to the point where I just think, sod it. If I want to exercise and get super fit, I will. If I don’t, I’m not doing it. If I want to go to the pub, I’ll do it. […] At the end of the day, if I’m super fit it might give me a few more years of life, but I’m not too bothered about that. (EK1-FG)

Overall, staying active was significant for most participants, emphasised by incorporating walking into their daily lives, both for leisure and for purpose. This importance was primarily driven by a range of physical and mental benefits highlighted by participants.

Enablers to staying active in later life

Participants highlighted several personal and environmental factors that enabled them to stay active. Many of these factors represent ways in which participants were facilitated to get out more generally, conforming with many participants’ definitions of ‘staying active’.

Accessibility

For almost all participants, having access to green space was identified as an enabler to staying active. In two of the five areas there were large parks in close proximity, with two areas also having access to a canal path. These spaces were seen as an essential part of the environment and for many participants, they provided not only a place to stay active, but also an opportunity to escape high levels of traffic near main roads: ‘Y’know, walking up here, you could be anywhere’ (SF4-WI). This was particularly important in areas near the city centre, where residents lived in flats or tenement buildings with little access to private garden space:

They all have back gardens right enough, but they’re communal and some of the neighbours don’t get on, so this [park] is their big garden. (DN2-WI)

For the majority of participants, particularly those who did not drive, having good access to public transport was also vital for getting out. In two areas, participants praised transport links, focusing primarily on buses. Availability and accessibility of buses were considered important, as well as the connections that these buses provided them with. For one participant with mobility issues, having an accessible and well-connected bus service helped to keep them socially active, which they most likely could not do without this service:

I can still go on the bus with my stroller, I was taught what to do and it’s great! […] I can still go out for lunch, eh, even [by the seaside] because we have a good service from door to door. Of course, [the various clubs], the coffee mornings as you’ve said, we have a lot going on in this church and I would be very sad if I couldn’t go anymore. (SF5-FG)

It is important to note that those aged 60 and over are entitled to free bus travel within Scotland though the older person’s bus pass (in England, eligibility is currently set at State Pension age). As a result, no participants reported access issues related to cost of public transport, rather, this was considered to encourage some participants to use the bus.

Access to car

Half of participants were drivers, many of whom suggested that their car was a key enabler, though the degree of importance varied. Whilst some participants suggested that having a car was simply a luxury, others argued that their car was essential and without it they would become less independent. This was particularly relevant for those who considered public transport links to be poor:

At the moment I couldn’t do without my car. I mean I know I’m getting older, and I’m not as confident driving, but it gets me out! (SF4-FG)

Some participants who did not drive still recognised the importance of a car for those who were perhaps less mobile or unable to get out alone, particularly in areas where facilities or transport links were lacking.

DN3:

You feel sorry for people who maybe don’t have cars and they’ve to phone a taxi or something.

DN5:

Or rely on family or something. If you’ve got your independence, it does make it easier, it really does. (DN-FG)

Staying active was, in many areas, facilitated by access to green spaces such as parks or canal paths. Getting out more generally was made possible by having independence, and aided further by good public transport links, or access to a car.

Barriers to staying active in later life

Whilst participants identified some enablers to staying active, the majority reported that they were prevented from being as active as they would like to be, which was attributed to a wide range of personal, environmental, and societal barriers.

Physical environment

The physical environment was considered by almost all participants a barrier to staying active. Primarily, focus centred on the environment itself and a lack of maintenance. Poorly maintained pavements and potholes were referred to in all but one session; in one session, reference was made to potholes or pavements approximately 18 times. One participant referred to the pavement as a ‘patchwork quilt’ (DN3-WI), as demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. A poorly maintained pavement regularly used by pedestrians.

Figure 2. A poorly maintained pavement regularly used by pedestrians (2).

The majority of participants highlighted that the state of pavements had a direct impact on their confidence levels, with many expressing fears about their safety whilst walking in their area. For many, this issue added an element of stress to their daily lives, as they must constantly be aware of their surroundings: ‘You’ve really got to watch where you’re walking’ (DN5-FG). One participant even suggested that they often find themselves walking on the road rather than pavement, as they feel safer. These fears were heightened even more for participants with mobility issues or other impairments:

I’m 91 years old and I’m lucky enough to have a, what I call a stroller – if I didn’t have that and just depended on my stick, I wouldn’t be able to come out because I wouldn’t be able to chance it. And that’s silly, I feel. At our age, when we have the church, and we are prevented just because the pavements aren’t being looked after. It’s really not right. What does it say, what they do for us older people? (SF5-FG)

Another key maintenance issue highlighted by some participants referred to clogged drains, where poor drain maintenance led to floods and a potentially dangerous walking environment, particularly during winter months:

When the leaves are down, then the road- flooded. Then that flooding freezes and it’s very, very dangerous. They should be getting the drains cleaned more regularly that’s why they’re getting choked. It’s not rocket science. And it affects everybody. (SF1-FG)

Lack of pedestrian infrastructure

Another key barrier highlighted by participants concerned shared streetspaces and provisions for pedestrians. Just over half suggested that safely navigating traffic was particularly difficult. One participant highlighted that areas to cross are limited, and even where these are in place, the crossings lacked traffic lights, leaving them feeling particularly unsafe:

I mean this one’s just right opposite these houses. So, you’ve got to watch this way, cross over, stand in the middle, watch these ones, and then you cross the second part. But meanwhile, while you’re standing, you’ve got cars whizzing up behind you and you’ve got cars whizzing in front of you, so you just feel a bit vulnerable.

(SF10-WI)

This participant explained that the crossing served a bus stop just opposite a row of houses, meaning that it was used frequently, and there were often multiple people crossing the road at once. They expressed concern, however, about the size of the crossing itself: ‘we’re all just kind of huddled round this wee island’ (SF10-WI) (Figure 3). They also highlighted that one driver had even crashed into the crossing, which only increased concern. In most areas, pedestrian crossings had traffic light systems, though some participants suggested that the time provided to cross was insufficient, particularly for those with mobility limitations.

Figure 3. A pedestrian crossing island midway point.

These issues were also highlighted in pedestrian areas. Around three-quarters of participants expressed that sharing space with cyclists represented a barrier to staying active. In one group, for example, participants suggested that the canal path was too narrow to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists, despite being accessible to both, making it difficult to walk there comfortably:

I mean, joggers are alright, but it’s the bikes. Normally when I come along [the canal] with my pal, we’re in single file. Cause there’s no point … (SF4-WI)

This issue, they argued, was only exacerbated by a lack of consideration from cyclists. It was suggested that some cyclists do not adhere to signposted restrictions or provide the courtesy of ringing a bell to make others aware of their presence, a particular issue that was experienced during walking interviews. Some suggested that this ultimately discouraged them from utilising these green spaces they had previously praised:

SF9:

They’ve ruined that walk. And they go along like the Tour de France. […] I mean sometimes if you’re at the library, I walk back via the canal, but I’ve stopped doing it! Cause it’s just too stressful!

SF3:

Aye, you canny relax, you’ve got to keep looking about. (SF-FG)

Age

Almost all participants expressed that age-related issues restricted their level of activity, preventing them from being as active as they would perhaps like to be. Primarily, participants referred to ‘pain’ and reduced mobility, aspects which were seen as an inherent part of the ageing process.

Would like to do a bit more walking but it’s just not possible. And I’ve got a 3-year wait for a knee op, so [laughs]. (DN2-FG)

Participants also suggested that the body knows best what its limits are: ‘Your body tells you, “Ah, that’s enough. Have a rest”’ (SF1-FG). One participant in particular highlighted the importance, not only of listening to this, but accepting it as a fact of life.

Impact of covid

Almost all participants highlighted that the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on their ability to stay active. For some, the ways in which they previously stayed active – swimming, exercise groups and gym classes – were no longer viable options, as leisure centres were closed during lockdown. Not only did this lead to disappointment, but a few participants suggested that having not had access to these facilities for such an extended period, they no longer felt capable of exercising in the way they used to.

I used to go every week to a gentle exercise class. Now, since Covid they’ve not come back again. And I swam once a week. Now, my New Year’s Resolution was to get back to doing it and I’ve not, but … Because when they did open it up again it was lane-only swimming and I, well, I felt after Covid – and I had Covid – I felt that I didn’t have the breath to do a full length really, and if somebody’s behind you … (SF9-WI)

For others, the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant negative impact on their confidence. One participant expressed that they still experience a degree of anxiety over a year after lockdown restrictions were lifted: ‘I think the fear’s still there for going out. Cause the numbers are still high, they’re as high as they were when Covid first came’ (SF4-WI).

Poor accessibility

Accessibility was identified as both an enabler and a barrier. In one area, participants expressed that, whilst there were relatively well-established connections to other areas, the area had, ‘always suffered’ (EK2-FG) from poor transport around the town itself, primarily referring to both a lack of, and poorly maintained, buses. Participants in this area also highlighted a lack of facilities. This, combined with transport issues, meant that having access to a car was almost a necessity.

And you just think, ‘well, why are there so many cars?’ It’s not just that people have fallen in love with their own transport. [This town] now, there is not a supermarket in the town centre. […] You are looking at going up to the retail park, which you take the car because it’s on the outskirts of town. (EK2-FG)

Feeling unsafe

In two areas, participants expressed explicit concern about a lack of street lighting. Even in the daylight, many participants were worried about going out due to the state of the pavements, and so many simply refused to go out at night, through fears for their physical safety.

I don’t know about you, but for us walking, even from the bus stop, it is, it’s frightening. I think the lights could be better. (SF9-FG)

Participants in one area were particularly wary of the area itself, suggesting that it would not be recommended to go out at night, through fear of harm from others.

I definitely wouldn’t go out without the car at night, I’d just wait till the morning if I needed anything, and I couldn’t go out and get it. Em … I mean this place is deserted at night when you come back, likes of from the town, and there’s not a soul. And if you’re waiting for the bus, spot the bus, you could wait 10 minutes, but nope, it doesn’t come. (DN2-FG)

Barriers to staying active were wide ranging. Poor maintenance and poor street design made walking particularly stressful and often made participants feel unsafe. Age-related mobility issues meant that walking was particularly difficult for some, whilst the COVID-19 lockdown and issues of accessibility resulted in a lack of opportunity to stay active.

Perceived impacts of traffic

A number of key issues regarding traffic were highlighted during discussions, from the volume or traffic itself to the behaviour of drivers.

Traffic levels

Participants in all areas argued that they experienced high levels of traffic, regardless of whether low traffic measures had been implemented within the area. One participant described the traffic levels as, ‘chronic’ (CM1-FG), and this was particularly felt by those living in areas close to city centres, referred to as, ‘main arter[ies] into town’ (SF9-FG), that experienced particularly high volumes of through-traffic. It is important to note that one of these areas was identified as ‘low traffic’, though low traffic measures within this area were not seen to have a significant impact on either traffic levels, or the behaviour of drivers.

Navigating these high levels of traffic was identified as particularly stressful: ‘The main roads today; you’ve got to be on your metal, you’ve got to be careful’ (EK1-FG). Almost all participants suggested that drivers’ behaviour further exacerbated this issue, presenting a significant risk to pedestrians. Many argued that there is a lack of consideration from some drivers, demonstrated by speeding or failing to adhere to restrictions, which, they argued, only exacerbates the issue, and makes navigating traffic even more dangerous.

Even the traffic at the cross. When my kids went to school, we would always cross there and see when the wee [green] man came, I would always wait, cause you still have to look, cause a lot of cars just come right through. (DN1-FG)

Parking

High levels of traffic were also seen to bring high demand for parking, which many areas could not provide. For some participants, this could be attributed to a sense of societal change. They argued that, as the car has become an almost inevitable part of growing up, an increasing number of people own or have access to cars, leading to issues of overcrowding. This issue was identified as particularly significant in areas near city centres, where drivers could park their cars and access public transport to complete their journey.

If I’m going to the doctors at the other end of the [main road], I canny get parked. So, I’ve got to get my husband and say, ‘You’ll need to drop me off’, and he canny get parked, so he’s going round in circles till I come back out again! [laughs] If I could get the bus, I’d get the bus, but … (DN2-FG)

Inconsiderate parking was also a key issue: parking on pavements, on double yellow lines, across access points, and outside schools, created significant access issues (Figures 4 and 5). For pedestrians, this was said to make walking more dangerous, particularly for those with mobility issues or other disabilities.

Figure 4. A parked van blocking pavement access in a busy area.

Figure 5. Cars parked on the pavement in a busy area, restricting access for pedestrians.

And do you know what another thing that annoys people is? Say, if you’re parking on the side and somebody’s parked on the pavement, and you’ve got a pushchair or somebody walking with a white stick, y’know, or a wheelchair. (DN3-WI)

Many participants also highlighted the impact that inconsiderate parking can have on access for other vehicles, such as emergency services.

What if someone’s house goes on fire? And you get the chicanes and sometimes there are vehicles parked on it, and you’re having to squeeze through it! (EK2-FG)

High levels of traffic, along with inconsiderate and dangerous parking, made walking difficult and, often, stressful, particularly for those with mobility issues.

Older adults’ concerns about low traffic measures

Despite a small degree of support, the majority of participants were pessimistic towards the concept of low traffic measures, particularly higher impact measures that required significant changes to the landscape, such as pocket parks. This outlook was most common amongst drivers, though non-drivers also expressed concern about the realistic impact of these measures and public reaction.

Impact of low traffic measures on traffic levels

Many participants struggled to identify any possible benefits that these measures may have, or simply struggled to picture these measures being implemented within their local area. Where these measures had been implemented, they were not seen to have any significant impact. Rather, there was a degree of scepticism. Primarily, concerns were directed towards the impact on neighbouring areas, with many under the impression that these measures would simply displace traffic:

What you’ll find is some people use these streets as a rat run. If you block those streets off, are you going to force the traffic onto [the main road]? (SF1-FG)

Some participants highlighted that low traffic measures may be beneficial for pedestrians. Importantly, this idea was popular within the low traffic area, suggesting currently implemented low traffic measures were not considered to be having the intended impact of increasing feelings of pedestrian safety. By reducing the level of traffic within the area, it was acknowledged that these measures would make walking feel safer and less stressful, and ultimately encourage active travel:

At the end of the day, what it’s designed to do and what it would do is discourage people from bringing vehicles into the cities, that’s what it’s about. (EK1-FG)

However, the majority of drivers expressed concern about the impact that these measures would have on them personally, and the freedom associated with having access to a car. Many argued that discouraging driving represented a disadvantage, with the measures primarily being viewed negatively.

Reaction from drivers

Some participants argued that, regardless of the intention, lack of compliance would render these measures meaningless. This was particularly felt in an area where some low traffic measures were already in place: ‘The idea is there, and it should work, it’s just people not following it’, (DN2-FG). This was attributed to an increase in the importance of cars over recent years: ‘the car is still king in this town’ (EK1-FG). From the perspective of many participants, the car had become an everyday part of life, and so low traffic measures alone would not change behaviour. Instead, participants argued that a change of mindset was required.

I think, considering current mindset, they would be approached with disdain, people will approach it with disdain. Some of them with every bone in their body. They have a car, they deserve that car, and they are keeping that car whatever physical barriers you put in place to try and stop them, until they see an alternative that works better for them. (EK1-FG)

Lack of consideration for older people

With a focus on active travel, a few participants suggested that the concept of LTNs almost completely overlooked older people. This was particularly felt in areas with high proportions of older residents, who were not seen to benefit from active travel infrastructure.

They’re thinking too far ahead I think and not about the population we’ve got just now. […] I think it’s a generation age thing they’re overlooking. […] They’re not looking at certain age groups I think, and as people are living longer, whether their mobility keeps them in the house, they still need to have access. (DN2-FG)

Participants were particularly sceptical about the implementation of low traffic measures, raising a number of concerns about how the impact these would have on drivers and the local community, as well as older people who may rely on cars to maintain their independence.

Maximising effectiveness of low traffic neighbourhoods

Low impact measures

Where there was any support for low traffic measures, this tended to be towards those with the lowest impact on both drivers and the physical landscape, such as one-way streets and bus gates. Many were keen to highlight, however, that existing measures were often ineffective on their own: ‘The cameras don’t work, the speed limits on the poles, nobody … ’ (SF10-WI). As such, there was a slight misalignment between what participants wanted and what they felt necessary; a dichotomy which may be reflected within the wider population. Some suggested, then, that low traffic measures should be implemented alongside monitoring measures, such as speed cameras, to encourage compliance.

One thing that’s annoying me is private cars turning down [this particular street], that’s only meant to be for buses. If you put a camera on that road, you’d catch hundreds. (SF1-FG)

Improved active travel infrastructure

In line with some of the barriers to staying active previously identified by participants, many advocated for better pedestrian infrastructure, to make walking within their area feel safer.

DN2: Definitely more lights, and a longer gap in between. I mean some of the cars are just sitting – amber gamblers – they’re just sitting waiting for amber and then they go! But then someone could just come round and weech! It doesn’t even need to be an older person, and they’re caught.

For others in areas with poor accessibility, investment in public transport was considered crucial to tackle existing traffic issues: ‘you will always have this problem unless there is a fleet of buses running across [the town] that get folk to the station’, (EK1-FG). These participants suggested that, beyond accessibility, it is important to make public transport comfortable, to encourage people to choose this over their own car.

The experience just now is, you walk, or you park your car at a train station, you get onto a train that’s from the 70s, it’s slow, it’s smelly, etc. Who would want that when they can just jump in their own car? (EK1-FG)

Importance of planning and consultation

Many participants recognised that making such changes was not a simple process. Demonstrated by some of the concerns raised, there was a great deal of consideration given to the impact that these measures may have. Some suggested that existing measures, such as cycle lanes, lacked effective planning and consultation, making them much less useful than anticipated. Thought and consideration, therefore, was key for participants.

It’d just need to be thought out. […] They could do it on a 6-month basis, get feedback from before and after, then decide whether they make it permanent or not. (SF10-FG)

Participants were primarily focused on measures that had the lowest impact, though highlighted that these are often ineffective of their own. Therefore, they recommended that they be put in place in conjunction with other measures, such as speed cameras, as well as improved active travel infrastructure.

Discussion

The implementation of traffic calming and reduction measures within Low Traffic Neighbourhoods aims to encourage active travel by making the area safer and more accessible for walking, wheeling, and cycling (Sustrans, 2020a). Findings from the current study exploring older people’s experiences of being and remaining active with age and perceptions of low traffic measures suggest that the implementation of low traffic measures are perceived as less positive, particularly for those with mobility issues.

Overall, participants in the current study had generally positive experiences of staying active, referred to as ‘getting out and about’, rather than engaging in PA specifically. For the majority, staying active was an important aspect of their lives, with walking often incorporated into their daily routines, both for leisure and for purpose. Bus travel was common among participants, particularly those who did not drive, which subsequently increased opportunities for walking; this may be attributable to the free bus pass scheme for over 60s, as highlighted by Andrews et al. (2012). For some, engagement in social activity resulted in increased walking, in line with previous research (Kubota et al., 2020; Richard et al., 2008). That said, many participants suggested that they were prevented from being as active as they would like to be, in line with previous studies highlighting unmet PA needs among older people (Eronen et al., 2014; Rantakokko et al., 2010).

Findings further highlight the impact of the physical environment on walking behaviour, consistent with Cerin et al. (2017), with physical barriers identified as the key barrier to PA by participants in all case study areas. For example, poor maintenance of the physical landscape, including pavements, potholes, and drains was identified by almost all participants as having a direct impact on their ability to navigate the local area, consistent with Ståhl et al. (2008), though the priority of this as a barrier was much higher in the current study. Though bus travel was common, a lack of good transport links made driving essential for some, leading to concerns regarding the impact that LTNs may have on their independence (Strogatz et al., 2020; Transport for All, 2021).

Existing low traffic measures were not perceived to be effective, with all areas identified by participants as having high levels of, often speeding traffic. Navigating this traffic as a pedestrian, was identified as a key concern by almost all participants. Sufficient pedestrian infrastructure was perceived to be lacking in many areas, leaving participants feeling particularly vulnerable. Where these crossings were available, some suggested that they did not ease fears for safety, as they did not provide sufficient crossing time, particularly for those with mobility issues, as highlighted by previous studies (Langlois et al., 1997; Michael et al., 2006). Similar to findings from Choi et al. (2018), this may reflect the need for such measures to include more pedestrian-focused infrastructure, such as longer crossing times and speed cameras, as well as improved spatial planning. Overcrowding as a result of high traffic levels was also considered to decrease perceptions of pedestrian safety, in line with findings from Kahlert and Schlicht’s (2015) study using computer-simulated walking environments.

The majority of participants approved of low traffic measures in principle, though struggled to see how they would be effective in practice, similar to perceptions of Silver Zones (Chng et al., 2022). For many, there were concerns about the impact these measures would have; many suggested that traffic would simply be displaced rather than reduced. Despite this being a common perception (Logan et al., 2021), research shows that low traffic measures significantly reduce traffic levels within LTNs by over half (Yang et al., 2022). Some suggested that many of these measures would be ineffective if not implemented alongside monitoring devices such as speed cameras. One key finding that emerged was the sense that, with LTNs, too much focus was being placed on active travel, with more consideration being needed regarding the impact of these measures on older people. Many older adults felt that active travel schemes did not sufficiently account for their needs, and that focusing too heavily on discouraging driving may have a detrimental impact on accessibility and independence, particularly those for whom driving is considered essential (Strogatz et al., 2020). These findings support those from Transport for All (2021), further highlighting the often-inaccessible nature of active travel for marginalised communities. It is necessary to engage specifically with these communities during the process of planning and consultation to overcome these issues.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to focus specifically on the perceived impacts of LTNs on older people, though contributes to a wider body of research highlighting the need for age-friendly considerations in urban design, in line with the WHO’s (2007) ‘Global Age-friendly Cities’ Guide. The current findings support the need for a more holistic approach to the implementation of LTNs; encouraging active travel engagement requires prioritising non-motorised transport, not only by tackling traffic issues, but also making pedestrian and cycling-focused improvements to the local environment, as well as improving experiences of using public transport. It is recognised, however, that this will likely require a significant culture change.

There were a number of strengths and limitations within this study. Walking interviews are argued to enhance the quality of data collected, with the surrounding environment prompting more natural conversations between researcher and participant (King & Woodroffe, 2017; Kinney, 2021). Within this study, walking interviews not only facilitated the collection of richer data, but also allowed participants to provide much-needed context to issues discussed within focus group sessions. Whilst this method often limits the research sample to those with a relatively good level of mobility (Evans & Jones, 2011), conducting these alongside focus groups ensured that those who were interested in taking part still could, regardless of their mobility level. Future research may adopt a more ‘virtual’ walkthrough methodology, like the one used by Kahlert and Schlicht (2015), in order to make the mobile aspect of this study more accessible and inclusive. The sample was relatively limited due to the community-based recruitment strategy, primarily consisting of women and those with a generally good level of mobility. It is necessary to consider, however, that older people are not a homogenous group, but represent a range of physical, mental, and cognitive abilities. As such, future studies may seek to explore the impact of LTNs with particular groups of older people, such as those with mobility impairments or dementia, who may be disproportionately negatively affected. That being said, it is necessary to acknowledge that this study was only intended to provide initial insight into the potential of low traffic measures, as a basis for further research. Given the qualitative nature of this study, findings are not aimed to be representative, but to provide an in-depth exploration of staying active with age, highlighting individual experiences. Future studies may incorporate supplementary quantitative methods alongside more extensive recruitment, in order to provide a more rounded understanding of experiences and allow for comparison among groups of older people.

To conclude, this exploratory study considered experiences of being and remaining active with age and perceptions of low traffic measures, in order to assess the perceived potential of low traffic measures to support healthy and active ageing. Issues navigating the physical environment, as well as high levels of traffic, led many participants to experience unmet PA needs. Whilst the implementation of low traffic measures was considered to tackle these issues in principle, participants’ concerns tended to overshadow their ability to recognise substantial positive impacts, consistent with previous research highlighting negative perceptions and positive outcomes. A more holistic approach to LTN development is required, with specific consideration given to the needs of older people in a bid to minimise negative impacts such as increased isolation and loneliness.

Future studies should build on this research with a wider and more varied sample, incorporating alternate methodologies, in order to provide a more rounded understanding of the potential of low traffic measures to support healthy and active ageing. The findings of this study highlight significant concerns about the impact of low traffic measures on older people, particularly those with poor mobility or who lack independence. Planning for LTNs should be approached through an age-friendly lens (WHO, 2007), involving increased and targeted consultation with specific groups of interest, such as older people, in order to address some of the negative impacts that LTNs may have on them, and work towards mitigating these. The overall aim should be to make Low Traffic Neighbourhoods more inclusive and accessible for all.

Statement of ethical approval

This study was approved by the Heriot-Watt University School of Social Sciences Ethics Committee (REF: 2023–4846–7447). The study was fully explained to participants, and all gave written informed consent prior to taking part.

Contributions of authors

AD and AJG developed the proposal and secured funding. All authors contributed to the conception and design of the work. LM led on the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, and drafting the initial manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final version to be published.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank all the participants for their contribution to this work, as well as those who supported recruitment via their networks. AD and AJG are members of the Centre for Applied Behavioural Sciences, supported by the School of Social Sciences at Heriot-Watt University.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The study was funded by Transport Scotland, disbursed via Sustrans under Grant number [1089768].