The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3. ACCESS TO THE RURAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL HERITAGE

Introduction

3.1 In the context of access to the rural environment and natural heritage this section focuses on:

• areas where progress is evident and areas where progress is less evident from an examination of the disability equality schemes, actions plans and annual reports of Scottish Natural Heritage ( SNH), the Cairngorms National Park Authority ( CNPA) and Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority ( LLTNPA);
• a discussion about the use of categories of impairment in these schemes; and
• evidence of consultation and involvement of disabled people in the development of the schemes.

3.2 Similar to reporting in all Ministerial reports, the remit for reporting on progress in this section has been limited to an examination of disability equality schemes, action plans and annual reports. It is acknowledged that a more comprehensive picture of progress being made by public authorities across all Ministerial portfolios could have been gleaned from the inclusion of other documentation sources ( e.g. Board meeting minutes and public authority research and statistics not included in schemes) and through consultation with public authority Directors/employees however, due to resource constraints (in the main time and costs) the focus of reporting has been limited to the remit of disability equality scheme documentation. Therefore the subsequent discussion and conclusions drawn on progress made should be read with this remit of the work borne in mind.

Background and Policy Context

3.3 The terms 'rural environment' and 'natural heritage' encompasses a wide range of terrain, terminology and meanings, including, for example, green areas in urban centres and towns, the countryside, nature reserves, greenspaces parks, mountains, forests and coastlines. Conservation and access to 'natural heritage' is overseen by Scottish Natural Heritage ( SNH), which was established by The Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. The Act states the main purposes of SNH are to:

' (a) secure the conservation and enhancement of; and (b) to foster understanding and facilitate the enjoyment of, the natural heritage of Scotland:' ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/ukpga_19910028_en_1). SNH states its mission as ' Working with Scotland's people to care for our natural heritage:' ( http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/corporate/factsandfigures/0304/index.htm).

3.4 The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 sets out four main aims of the National Parks and lays out the criteria for what qualifies as a park for National Park status, and the process to create such features. The aims as stated in the Act are:

'a) to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area,

(b) to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area,

(c) to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public, and

(d) to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area's communities.' ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2000/asp_20000010_en_1#pb1-l1g1)

3.5 Following the Act, two National Parks were established: Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority ( LLTNPA) in 2002 and Cairngorms National Park Authority ( CNPA) in 2003. Their main purpose is to help prepare and facilitate the implementation of a National Park Plan working closely with a wide range of stakeholders, including local communities, landowners and managers, individuals and organisations ' with an interest in the conservation, enjoyment, understanding and sustainable use of its natural and cultural heritage' ( SNH undated).

3.6 Park Authorities have a number of functions and powers to assist in achieving their aims. These include functions and powers to:

'I. enter into management agreements, make bylaws and establish management rules
II. make charges for goods and services
III. provide advice and assistance and undertake or fund research
IV. provide grant
VI. purchase land
VII. create nature reserves
VIII. provide information and education
IX. provide countryside facilities such as toilets, car parks, campsites and picnic areas
X. provide sport, recreation and leisure facilities
XI. make improvements to inland waterways
XII. protect and maintain of rights of way; and
XIII. request traffic management schemes'
( SNH).

3.7 Following the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995, there has been increasing interest in making the outdoors accessible to disabled people. For example, this was reflected in the publication of the ' BT Countryside for All: A Good Practice Guide for Disabled People Access to the Countryside' in 1997, and republished in 2005 (see http://www.fieldfare.org.uk/?page_id=205). This is seen as a key resource in providing guidance on physical access issues to the countryside for disabled people. In addition, guidance provided by organisations such as Paths for All Partnership on issues such as making interpretation more accessible and volunteering (Paths for All, not dated) as well as the Outdoor Access for Scotland Group are also important mechanisms for involving groups representing disability interests.

3.8 Although, it would appear from the documentation examined that the main recent driver for change with regard to disability has been the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 ( DDA) National Park approaches to disability equality do predate the DDA (2005). For example, in 2003 an 'All Abilities Communications Network' was established, with a remit to:

• 'ensure that CNPA policy and best practice is well informed by the views of disabled people and their representative bodies who live in, work in and visit the area;
• provide information and advice to the CNPA;
• generate ideas to put forward to the CNPA Board on disability issues, not just on physical access.'

In 2006, the remit of the group was extended to cover all aspects of equality and social inclusion and as a result changed its name to 'Inclusive Cairngorms' ³.

3.9 SNH in their Disability Equality Scheme as well as others ( e.g. The Countryside Agency, 2005; Morris, 2003; Bell et al 2006) acknowledge that there is a dearth of research to inform their policies and interventions on access to the rural environment and natural heritage. The lack of a high demand for access to the outdoors on the part of disabled people is recognised as symptomatic of a wide range of barriers that exist, making access difficult for this group. One of the main resources for providing guidance on physical access issues to the rural environment for disabled people continues to be a revised version of the earlier publication, BT Countryside for All: A Good Practice Guide for Disabled People Access to the Countryside ( http://www.fieldfare.org.uk/?page_id=205). There is a growing recognition that access to the rural environment and natural heritage is more than just about mobility and should include: good quality and accessible information, effective communication and changes in attitudes and behaviour (Countryside Agency 2005).

3.10 In addition, following the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, a Scottish Outdoor Access Code website and a National Access Forum was established (Scottish Outdoor Access Code, not dated). The Forum has an advisory role in relation to SNH, and has supported the establishment of Local Access Fora which may include disabled individuals as members amongst others ( e.g. public agencies and land managers). The overall purpose of the local fora is to assist users and access providers to engage with each other and to develop and manage access issues collaboratively.

Research and Statistical Context

3.11 Consistent long term data on recreational participation in the outdoors (which encompasses urban green spaces to the remote and wild) is difficult to access due to changes in survey methodologies - for example changes in particular types of activities included, sampling and so on (Greene 1996; SNH 2004a&b). The most consistent data available is that based on a Sportscotland assessment of participation in sports since 1987. For example, it was reported that adults surveyed taking part in outdoor activities ( e.g. walking, cycling, fishing, hill-walking, horse-riding, sailing or skiing) during four weeks prior to interview increased from 41% in 1987-1989 to 54% in 1999-2001 ( SNH 2004a).

3.12 Scottish Natural Heritage's Information ( SNHi) service does provide a wide range of web based data in relation to the natural environment and on its activities, but this does not appear to include data related to the users of its services (see http://www.snh.org.uk/snhi/). However, SNH with support from the Forestry Commission established a new Scottish Recreation Survey in 2003. SNH provides some preliminary trend information on access and recreation for the period between 1994-2003 based on the Scottish Recreation Survey and other data sources ( SNH 2004b). The most recent data based on a survey of 12,219 Scottish adults aged 16 years and over suggests that both provision for and participation in many forms of recreation ( e.g. outdoor recreation, mountaineering and hill walking, coastal recreation, forest walking, etc.) have increased. For example, drawing on the 2005 published data ( SNH 2005):

• Between July 2004 and June 2005, 75% of the Scottish adult population had made a visit to the outdoors for recreation purposes.
• Forty-three per cent of respondents had reported undertaking outdoor visits at least once a week compared to 21% of respondents who had not taken any visits.
• Walking was the most popular activity, mentioned by 56% of participants.
• Respondent's social class background grade was a significant factor in predicting their likelihood of participating in outdoor recreation and leisure activities. For instance, 88% of respondents in professional and managerial occupations visited the outdoors compared with 59% in unskilled manual occupations or unemployed.
• Lack of time and being too busy was the most frequently provided reason (31% of respondents) for not accessing the outdoors for recreation purposes. Poor health was the second most mentioned reason (27%) by those who were in unskilled manual occupations, were retired and unemployed.
• There was an increased awareness of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code; for example, 25% of the Scottish adults reported that they were definitely aware of the Code compared to seven per cent during the previous year.

3.13 One of the major weaknesses of this data is that it does not lend itself to disability analysis, due to the lack of disaggregated data relating to individuals with disabilities. SNH and the National Park Authorities individually and in collaboration are attempting to address some of these gaps through joint commissioning of research; for instance, a research project titled ' Joint National Park and SNH Outreach Project' focusing on schools and 'social inclusion groups' is currently ongoing and due to report late in 2008. In addition the establishment of groups such as the 'Inclusive Cairngorms' group by CPNA will help to improve the evidence base (see paragraph 3.8 above).

3.14 In addition a study (Bell et al 2006) commissioned by SNH on deaf visitors identified a number of issues as particularly important in addressing their needs. For example some of the issues mentioned included:

• The importance of understanding the diverse needs and abilities of deaf, hard of hearing and deafened people.
• The use of information networks used by deaf people to distribute information about access to the rural environment and facilities.
• Delivery of training and deaf awareness for access providers, staff/people responsible for events and front line staff working in activities related to the rural environment, for example, recreation, education and interpretation.
• The design of external spaces should ' fulfil inclusive access criteria… Paths should be good enough to prevent people bumping into obstacles while using British Sign Language or lip reading and walking at the same time. (Summary)
• Minimise conflict with other hearing users ( e.g. bike riders and horse riders) by providing them with appropriate information about deaf users.

3.15 More recently a Forestry Commission Scotland (2008) survey of visitors to the forests provides some limited data on disability. The survey undertaken between June 2004 to June 2007 involved 2,694 face to face interviews. The twin aims of the survey were to measure the volume of visitors across the Forestry Commission Scotland state and districts and obtain information on visitor profiles. The survey estimated that approximately 8.7 million visits to Forestry Commission Scotland were made per year (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2008, p17). Five per cent (135 individuals) of respondents stated that they or a member of the group they were with had a disability or special need. Of these 71% reported having a disability related to mobility, with smaller numbers mentioning disabilities related to hearing (11%), sight (8%) learning disability (5%) (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2008, p27).

3.16 The Forestry Commission Scotland Report (2008) acknowledges the fact that many people in Scotland may be unable or unwilling to take part in enjoyable woodland activity due to a variety of factors, including disability, distance, low income and fear of crime. This also reflects the evidence from elsewhere. For example, agencies such as the Countryside Agency suggests that disabled people are under-represented in 'countryside use' and use of green spaces in general (The Country side Agency 2005). This was reinforced by a fairly dated report by Greenhalgh and Warpole, (1995, cited by The Country Side Agency 2005, p6) which argued that although, 20% of people in the UK were considered to have impairments, the presence of people with 'evident impairments never amounted to more than 0.5% of all users'. Three types of countryside users were identified in the report:

• Twenty per cent of the UK population were frequent visitors and represented the better-off families who were likely to have two cars, had no disability and were well informed about the countryside and what it had to offer.
• Forty per cent were on middle incomes with one car per household, living in towns and suburbs.
• The missing visitors represented the remainder (40%) of the population and were people on low incomes and reliant on public transport, and were likely to include some ethnic minority communities, older people and disabled people (Stoneham, 2001, cited in The Countryside Agency, 2005, p6).

3.17 Making information available on access issues in relation to the environment and natural heritage is an important factor in enabling people with disabilities to make informed choices. The Countryside Agency (2005, p13) provided a tool for thinking about access to the outdoors/countryside for disabled groups which agencies working in this area might usefully consider employing. This tool, the ' Access Chain', charts in detail the issues to be considered from the initial step where a group or individual is thinking about a visit to their successful return home. A similar approach is advocated by Bell et al (2006) in their report on deaf visitors to the countryside.

Reporting on Progress - Areas where progress is evident

Introduction

3.18 An examination of the schemes, actions plans and annual reports of the three agencies discussed in paragraph 3.1 reveal their intention to take action to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity for disabled people both in their role as employers and as service providers. From an examination of their documents, the following emerged as areas of progress:

• Impact assessment
• Staff training
• Harassment
• Physical accessibility
• Communication

Impact assessment

3.19 Two of the three organisations specifically referred to either having conducted or were in the process of developing systems for conducting equality impact assessments. Cairngorms National Park Authority ( CNPA) had made a commitment in its scheme and annual report to developing an Equality Impact Assessment toolkit, while SNH had already developed a toolkit, and undertaken and published the results of its impact assessment. As part of the implementation of the impact assessment it had established an Equality Impact Assessment User Group who were trained to conduct the assessments with a commitment to roll out further training in 2008. In the case of Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority ( LLTNPA) the documents examined seemed to lack clarity as to their understanding of impact assessments and the extent to which an impact assessment on all their functions and services had been carried out.

Training

3.20 An examination of schemes and actions plans suggested that all three agencies acknowledged the importance of awareness and training, both in relation to their staff, board members, and stakeholder groups and partners. With regard to staff and board members, the focus of the training referred to raising employee awareness of disability issues, particularly in relation to three areas: improving customer care; ensuring equality in relation to human resource practices ( e.g. recruitment and selection); and improving the numbers of applications for jobs from disabled applicants and volunteers.

3.21 Training for staff in the use of 'Plain English' for communication had been undertaken by CPNA and staff had been issued with handbooks which included information on equal opportunity policies. SNH reported being in discussion with an e-learning company to make a disability toolkit available to all staff and indicated their intention to launch an 'Equality and Diversity microsite' on the staff intranet which would draw together the research and evidence across all equality and policy areas. Organisations made an attempt to identify numbers of staff and Board members that had undergone training on disability issues. For example, CNPA's scheme states that they have trained 50 members of staff (nearly 100% staff attendance) and three of their Board members (20% of members) in Disability Awareness. Further training is to be run for those staff and Board members who have not yet attended. In relation to training for stakeholder groups and partners, SNH and the Park Authorities reported hosting a number of events aimed at sharing good practice on improving access to the countryside for disability groups.

Harassment

3.22 Two of the three agencies mentioned the development of staff handbooks covering guidance on bullying and harassment. The introduction of staff handbooks on bullying and harassment is a positive step forward in that authorities have developed clear guidance for their staff on what constitutes bullying and harassment and what they should do if they suspect a staff member is experiencing these. In order to ensure that the policies and procedures are effective agencies may wish to consider reporting on implementation including an evaluation of the policies and procedures on bullying and harassment when (and if) they are used in relation to disabled staff.

Physical Accessibility

3.23 Physical accessibility in relation to the three agencies under consideration in this section of the report includes buildings and the 'outdoors' ( e.g. paths, viewpoints and picnic areas). From the schemes, action plans and annual reports examined it would appear that there is progress on access to the physical environment (buildings and outdoors) by disabled people. Audits of properties and access issues in relation to the outdoors had been completed, and all three reported they were in the process of putting in place measures to address the results of these audits. However, the documents do not give specific details on the result of the audits or the specific measures being adopted in response to the results of the audits. The scheme and action plan of one of the National Park Authorities also stated its ability to ensure that access issues are taken into account in new developments and to attach relevant planning conditions if necessary, as a planning authority within the National Park. The documents in relation to both National Park Authorities also demonstrated an awareness of ensuring that their public meetings are held in places where there is disability access and facilities and cite procedures in place to ensure that those with disabilities are encouraged to inform them of their requirements. The establishment of a register of accessible venues and village halls by CPNA is worthy of note. In addition, the Park Authority also expressed its intention to explore the use of tele-conferencing and video-conferencing as an alternative to face-to-face meetings to overcome the problem of distance.

Improving Access to the rural environment and natural heritage

3.24 The schemes, action plans and annual reports examined included an acknowledgement of the diverse needs of individuals with disabilities that have to be considered when accessing the outdoors.

3.25 In this context, there was an acknowledgement of the lack of research and understanding with regard to disability and access to the outdoors and the agencies identified steps being taken to address this gap. For example, SNH have commissioned a number of projects, some of which are ongoing to address this gap. Some examples of SNH projects, cited in their annual report, worth noting include approval of eight projects in relation to ' all ability access' on Scotland's national Nature Reserves and a project on ' Access to the Countryside for Deaf Visitors'. With regard to the latter, the annual report mentions that SNH was in the process of examining the necessary requirements for interpretation and visitor facilities, for example the ' feasibility of British Sign Language and video imagery'. In addition it was reported that they had a British Sign Language video which had highlighted the main findings and outcomes from their research on ' Access to the Countryside for Deaf Visitors', which was to be made available on their website as well as that of Deaf Connections. At a national level, it also cites its commitment to keeping under review the Scottish Outdoor Access Code through the National Access Forum which has organisations representing disability interests.

3.26 CPNA in its scheme and annual report refers to representation of disability interests in their Local Outdoor Access Forum ( LOAF) established to provide advice on and develop their ' Outdoor Access Strategy'. In addition, the 'Inclusive Cairngorm' group (see paragraph 3.8) which is serviced by CPNA and which meets bi-monthly has been involved in providing advice on their 'Core Paths Plan' and on outdoor access provision which was reported as having resulted in an 'all abilities trail' locally. LLTNPA also refers to a number of activities it is engaged in with regard to achieving its aims of ' providing a barrier free approach to outdoor access provision'. For example, working with organisations such as the Fieldfare Trust (a charity with a remit to promote access for disabled people to the countryside), SNH and local people, including disabled people, in developing its Outdoor Access policy and ' compliant access infrastructure' for land managers and those developing paths. It also cited examples of initiatives targeted at improving disabled access to the rural environment and natural heritage. This included a solar powered boat funded through a European Project specifically to improve outdoor access opportunities for disabled people, and specific events, such as for example, a walk for a group of visually impaired people along the West Highland Way.

Communication

3.27 The schemes, action plans and annual reports record the commitment of the agencies to improving communications and improving design specifications for legibility. The National Park authorities provide information materials in different formats such as audiotape or Braille and some achievements worth noting include: SNH's National Nature Reserve leaflet which is available in Braille and in audio pod casts which are downloadable, improving signage and the potential commitment to the production of a British Sign Language video highlighting the main findings and outcomes from their research on ' Access to the countryside for Deaf Visitors' mentioned above in 3.24; and CPNA cite the development of a new web portal to assist disabled people with planning a visit to the National Park.

Rural development role of National Park Authorities

3.28 In addition to improving access to the rural environment and natural heritage, the National Park Authorities have a wider role with regard to the population that are living and working in the National Parks. The Park Authorities are enabling and facilitating bodies with a general purpose of ensuring the National Park aims are collectively achieved in a co-ordinated way. In order to do this the Park Authorities must work with their partners, local authorities and other public bodies and are the lead agencies in producing the National Park Plans. The Authorities in their schemes and actions plans refer to the importance of being inclusive by taking the needs of disabled people into account and cite a number of cases of working with their partners in relation to this.

3.29 To sum up, the disability equality duty has been in force for less than 2 years and is still in the early stages of implementation. Clearly, there is a lot still to be done. But examination of the first round of disability equality schemes and annual reports produced by the three agencies considered in relation to access to the rural environment and natural heritage is already showing areas where progress is being made and revealing good practice which can be built on in future. Areas of progress include the following:

1. Assessment of policies, functions and procedures on disability equality have been undertaken or in the process of being undertaken;

2. Research is being commissioned to address gaps in knowledge in relation to the barriers that exists to accessing the rural environment and natural heritage amongst equality groups including those with disabilities;

3. Action plans have been developed with regard to improving access to the rural environment and heritage amongst groups with disabilities;

4. Development of recruitment and employment policies and of staff guidance handbooks on how to address bullying and harassment should such instances occur;

5. Staff/Board member awareness raising and training;

6. Involvement of people with disabilities and/or organisations representing disabled interests in a variety of contexts ( e.g. staff training, meetings, and physical access and communication issues).

7. In their enabling and facilitating role, working with partners to influence policy development and promote disability equality.

Reporting on Progress - Areas where progress is less evident

Introduction

3.30 While all the schemes, action plans and annual reports of all three agencies demonstrated a focus on the required elements of the disability legislation, within these documents there were a number of areas where progress appeared to be less evident. Progress also reflects the early stage of the duty and the first set of schemes and action plans. From the documents examined, areas where progress was less evident were:

• Employment
• Evaluation and impact of training,
• Improving access to the rural environment and natural heritage and public life.

Employment

3.31 Although all three agencies acknowledged the importance of removing barriers to employment and were in the process of reviewing their policies in relation to recruitment, employment and retention, in general the schemes, action plans and annual reports did not include employment and/or membership related data with regard to disabled people (however, it should be noted here that CNPAs scheme did state that their employment monitoring statistics are available separately from their scheme). From schemes, while all three agencies appeared to have made some progress with regard to establishing monitoring for employment purposes of applicants with disabilities in the context of the recruitment process ( e.g. numbers of applicants with disabilities) progress once in employment was less evident. Two of the three agencies reported that they had conducted or were in the process of conducting surveys and/or consultations with staff with a view to identifying numbers who consider themselves to be disabled as well as highlighting training and other relevant issues. The SNH documents referred to the implementation of a new Human Resource system in January 2007 which would generate a quarterly 'people report' to monitor employment and the recruitment process for people with disabilities.

3.32 However, where staff consultations and/or surveys had taken place, the results of these were not elaborated in the schemes and action plans nor was there any indication where these might be accessed. One of the agencies reported that consultation with employees and Board members had not been possible because there were no employees and members who considered themselves to be disabled. Overall, the absence of data - i.e. numbers and percentages of people with disabilities employed and as members and their positions within the organisation - in the documents examined makes measuring progress on employment and members difficult.

3.33 That said, disclosing employment statistics of small organisations is problematic due to identification and confidentiality issues. For example, research by Equality Forward (2007) ⁴ - in the context of disabled employees in colleges and universities - suggests that statistics on disabled staff are harder to ascertain as they may feel they have a lot to lose, in that it might damage their employment or promotion prospects. Here, the research demonstrated that despite the fact that disclosing an impairment would mean that a staff member could then request reasonable adjustments to their working environment, it seemed that such benefits of disclosure were outweighed by fears of stigmatisation in relation to that staff members impairment.

Evaluation and Impact of Training

3.34 As previously discussed in this section (see 3.20-3.21 above) from an examination of the schemes, action plans and annual reports, there was evidence of progress on delivering training on disabilities to their staff. However it may have been helpful if the documents had included reference to how the impact of training is being assessed and evaluated, and the ways in which the results of such evaluation would feed into future training plans related to the objectives of the schemes and action plans. That said, it should be noted that within the timeframe for annual reporting on disability equality schemes the longer term impacts of training activities are unlikely, as yet, to have fed through into annual report documentation.

Improving Access to the Rural Environment and Natural Heritage

3.35 While all three organisations are committed to improving access to the rural environment and heritage amongst all groups, as previously highlighted, there is a general dearth of data and evidence on the numbers and extent to which people with disabilities are accessing the rural environment and natural heritage. LLTNPA cited a figure for those with disabilities who had attended the educational activities organised by the Authority in 2007. Although this is to be encouraged, lack of information on the total number of attendees makes it difficult to get a sense of scale.

3.36 All three agencies cite initiatives they are involved in to address the gap in information with regard to disabled people accessing the rural environment, however, at present, it is not possible to effectively comment on progress regarding access to the rural environment and natural heritage amongst the diverse groups with impairments until such time as there is robust baseline information from which to draw on. Overall, there would appear to be a lack of synergy at times between the different arms of an organisation - for instance, research being commissioned by one part of the organisation does not always appear to feed into the organisations' action plans in a way that would assist with monitoring and evaluating impact. For example, data from the SNH report commissioned on ' Access to the Countryside for Deaf Visitors' ( Bell et al 2006) does not appear as part of SNH's action plan and targets with regard to improving access for deaf visitors to the rural environment and natural heritage.

Public life

3.37 All three agencies have Boards which provide a strategic direction to their work. The involvement of some disability interests in the Boards and the delivery of disability awareness training to Board members is cited in the schemes and action plans of the National Park Authorities and such steps taken to increase public involvement of disabled individuals in Boards are to be encouraged. However, it is difficult to comment from the limited evidence presented in the documents examined on how extensively disability interests are represented on Boards, and on the potential leadership role of the Boards in championing disability issues. That said, given that this report has not drawn on other sources ( e.g. Board meeting minutes) it cannot be concluded that disability interests are not extensively represented on Boards.

3.38 In general from an examination of schemes, action plans and annual reports areas which appeared to show less evidence of progress included the following:

1. It is not always clear from the documents considered that there is connection between research being commissioned, the actions planned and the intended outcomes.

2. There was a lack of baseline data on disabled people in general (as employees and service users) making it difficult to assess progress.

3. There appeared to be a lack of clarity on the potential leadership role of Board members with regard to disability issues within the organisation and in relation to improving access to the rural environment however, as noted at paragraph 3.37 the leadership role may be clearly evident from other documentation sources ( e.g. Board meeting minutes).

Categories of Impairment

3.39 The groups most frequently referred to in the documents included those with hearing and visual impairments, mental health issues and mobility difficulties. Reference to different categories of disabilities was evident mainly in the introduction and context setting of the schemes and in descriptions of steps being taken to address the deficit in information. For example, the research commissioned by SNH ' Access to the Countryside for Deaf Visitors' (Bell et al 2006). However, there appeared to be little use made of the available evidence in developing specific actions. Consequently, there was a tendency to reviewing and or putting in place global procedures with little reference to the diversity of disabilities experienced by individuals and specific outcomes that might be expected.

Consulting and Involving Disabled People

3.40 The schemes of all three agencies acknowledged the importance of consulting and involving disabled people internally within their organisations as well as externally with regard to addressing barriers to accessing the rural environment and natural heritage. With regard to the latter, one of the main vehicles cited for involving people with disabilities and organisations representing the interests of disability groups was the Outdoor Access Forum, nationally (by SNH) and the Local Outdoor Access Forum at a local level (by both National Park Authorities). In addition, there were also other initiatives at the local level to encourage the involvement of disability interests. One of the Park Authorities for example, referred to the establishment of the Inclusive Cairngorms Group as an additional mechanism for the involvement of all equality groups including disabled people. It also included a commitment to exploring others ways of involving disabled people who may not be able to attend meetings because of travel distances. Its scheme and annual report also refers to using the National Standards for Community Engagement (Communities Scotland) as a guide for consultation and involvement issues.

3.41 Similarly, SNH refers to engaging with a wide range of disability organisations, including broadly the following activities:

• funding organisations for specific initiatives to improve the engagement of disabled people in the agency's activities;
• funding research to explore barriers and explore ways of addressing these; and
• working with disability-led organisations to deliver training to staff involved in the rural environment and natural heritage sector, and assisting SNH to identify good practice, promote new initiatives and in various advisory capacities.

3.42 LLTNPA in its scheme and annual report highlights continuing difficulties in encouraging the participation and involvement of disabled groups, which it partly attributes to the low numbers of disabled people in the Park. However, it does recognise the need to do more and the documents identify actions to address this situation. These include improving their communication methods and strengthening their existing links with people with disabilities and organisations representing disability interests.

3.43 While there is a commitment in the documents to involving staff with disabilities internally, given the small numbers and/or lack of data on how many staff and Board members with disabilities are involved in the agencies, it is difficult to comment - based on just a review of schemes, action plans and annual reports - on progress or otherwise being made in this context.

Summary and conclusion

3.44 An examination of documents revealed that the three agencies discussed in 1b appear to have given serious consideration to disability equality from the rural environment and natural heritage perspective, and there was evidence of much activity both started and planned. In general the agencies appeared to be aware of the importance of making the rural environment and natural heritage accessible to people with disabilities and were putting in place procedures to achieve this. There was also evidence of collaboration between the three agencies especially with regard to joint commissioning of projects related to equality groups including disabled people. While the documents examined revealed a commitment to working towards improving the evidence base to help underpin policies and actions, both internally with regard to their staff and externally, the links between evidence, where it existed, and actions and outcomes were not always clearly reflected in the action plans and targets. Improving the quality of baseline data both in relation to staff and externally in relation to delivering services to disabled people will be important for demonstrating progress in the future.

« Previous | Contents | Next »