Research Questions: PART 2

My last post reflected on the primary research question that my collaborative research project on Route 100 focuses on. The primary question, "what is this thing" is supported by two secondary questions that aim to dig deeper into specific areas of interest for myself and the rest of the research team. In the same format that I discussed the primary question, this post introduces the first of two secondary questions. I begin by dissecting the reason and theoretical purpose behind the question, then follow this up by explaining how we planned to (and currently are) analyzing the question using our empirical research.

SECONDARY RESEARCH QUESTION:

"WHAT DOES ROUTE 100 AFFORD?

WHAT DOES IT PREVENT?"

Defining Vocabulary

To approach this secondary research question, it is vital to define the vocabulary used in both parts of the question.

The word "Afford" is a verb that can be defined in the following ways:

1.  to be able to do, manage, or bear without serious consequence or adverse effect.
2.  to be able to meet the expense of; have or be able to spare the price of.
3.  to be able to give or spare.
4. to furnish; supply.
5.  to be capable of yielding or providing.

Likewise, the word "Prevent" is also a verb and is defined as:

1.  to keep from occurring; avert; hinder.
2.  to hinder or stop from doing something.
3.  to act ahead of; forestall.
4.  to precede.
5.  to anticipate.

Each of the above definitions are relevant to this research and might be expressly considered as sub-questions to explore the advantages and disadvantages of Route 100 for users.

But before getting to the sub-questions…I would like to begin to hash-out the theoretical aspect of this research question.

Theory of Affordances 

The Theory of Affordances proposed by James J. Gibson, refined in his book "The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception", offers a theoretical basis for approaching this question. Gibson introduces this theoretical concept by suggesting that:

"…the affordances of the environment are what it offers to the animal, what it provides or furnishes, for either good or ill." (Gibson 1986: 127)

For the purposes of this project, the "environment" is Route 100 and the "animal" is any person interacting with the route and its facilities. And, with regards to this secondary research question, it is assumed that when and where affordances do not exist, a prevention has potentially occurred.

I briefly discussed the connection to Gibson's theories in my last blog post on "What is this thing?".

Physical Setting

What is provided on the ground is the basis for what activities and behaviors are possible in a given space. Gibson suggests that the physical characteristics of a space either support or inhibit the affordances in the space. He specifically states that horizontal, flat, extended, and rigid locations provide superior support the capacity of affordances. The substances and resources existing in a given setting likewise influence the possible affordances to those living in and interacting with in a physical space. Physical locations are also filled with object, both attached and detached, which may allow or restrict how the environment is interacted with. According to Gibson:

"[d]etached objects must be comparable in size to the animal under consideration of they are to afford behavior" and "Sheets, sticks, fibers, containers, clothing, and tools are all detached objects that afford manipulation." (Gibson 1986: 133)

Embodied Users

Beyond what the physical setting accommodates and makes possible or impossible, Gibson indicates that what an environment affords or prevents must be "measured relative to the animal." (Gibson, 127) This concept is echoed in the notion of 'mobilities divides' proposed by Jensen. While the characteristics of the physical setting remain constant, the affordances the setting provides are potentially different for each individual, or group of individuals. Gibson refers to the ecological concept of the  "niche" to explain that each type of animal, each type of person, utilizes the physical setting in a unique way. The various functions, skills, position, or needs of a given animal constructs its niche, which Gibson describes as a "set of affordances". (Gibson 1986:128)

The species of animals influences what niche it fills, and therefore what affordances the environment provides. Animals with hands, for example, are afforded the ability to interact with the objects and manipulate the substances in an environment differently than those without hands. The set of affordances that mankind processes as a result of physical capabilities, size, and brain functions has allowed the species to alter the environment on a larger-scale than other species living on the planet. Gibson explains by using objects as tools to wield the material resources:

"[t]he layout of surfaces [have] been changed, by cutting, clearing, leveling, paving, and building. Natural deserts and mountains, swamps and rivers, forests and plains still exist, but they are being encroached upon and reshaped by man-made layouts." (Gibson 1986: 129)

The myriad alterations that mankind has made to the environment are all in the interest of augmenting the potential affordances the physical setting can accommodate to the species. Where land is too vertical to afford walking upon, actions may be taken from installing stairways or systems of serpentine pathways to measures as drastic as regrading entire hillsides to create horizontal expanses. Gibson adds that these enhancements to:

"...locomotion [are] guided by the perception of barriers and obstacles, that is by the act of steering into the openings and away from the surfaces that afford injury." (Gibson 1986: 132)

Furthermore, how, or whether, an animal approaches improving locomotion is a function of what the animal believes is possible. That is to say, it is:

"…what we perceive when we look at objects are their affordances, not their qualities." (Gibson 1986: 134)

…and that:

"…[y]ou do not have to classify and label things in order to perceive what they afford."  (Gibson 1986: 134)

By this, Gibson highlights that it is not only the physical elements of the setting that form the affordances an environment allows. Rather, it is the perception, cleverness, and ingenuity of the embodied user that determines what the setting yields. That is not to say that the environment is unable to inhibit particular uses and possibilities, but the degree to which locomotion and other activities are prevented very much depends on how the animal responds to the environment.

Social Interaction

The possibility for social interactions in an environment is dependent on the existence of embodied users in a space. Gibson suggests that:

"[t]he richest and most elaborate affordances of the environment are provided by other animals and, for us, other people." (Gibson 1986: 135)

Based on this line of thinking, larger concentrations of embodied users existing in a physical setting allow for a great possibility for affordances. It is, therefore, indicated that the wealth and quality of affordances is severely limited in a physical setting without the presence of animals. Just as animals reap affordances through their perception of and interaction with the objects and substances in the environment, interacting with other animals can contribute to what affordances an environment offers. Different embodied users may assist one another in expanding their respective perception of the physical setting.

They may also work together to make minor and major alterations to the environment in order to increase the number or improve the quality of affordances available. This might result in the development of a settlement or the building of infrastructure mega-projects to connect and service area residents. Different users may also afford one another the possibility of obtaining vital resources needed for survival.

Working List of Sub-Questions

In order to best explore this secondary research question, a set of sub-questions have been developed in order to target the team's research and analytical foci. These questions are not exhaustive, but rather intended to provide a foundation for understanding what Route 100 affords and prevents to people and the physical environment.

How each sub-question is to be approached is related to the empirical research done during the course of this project. During November and December 2013, the project team implemented an online survey advertised to Route 100 users. The questions within this survey were crafted to provide insight into the users experience with the goal of augmenting responses to the project's research questions. To that end, a brief explanation of how each sub-quetion is potentially influenced and answerd by the survey responses.

A complete list of the survey questions can be found in a previous blogpost, including the rationale behind each individual question.

The Physical Setting

2-A.1   What does Route 100 furnish or supply?

This research project has defined primary types of infrastructure provided along Route 100, including: 1) Shared Roadway; 2) Blue Bicycle Lanes; 3) Bicycle Lanes; 4) Grade-Separated Bicycle Lanes; and 5) Off-Street Paths. A part of this /project is to map out where each of these types of infrastructure are provided. It is assumed that each type provides a different set of affordances, as they vary in safety, legibility, and purpose. Considering responses to survey question 5.1, which asks which types respondents prefer, it might be possible to extrapolate what types furnish and supply 'more' to users based on which are more preferred. 

In addition to these types of infrastructure, there are also many other facilities provided along Route 100. This project has focused in on a specific set of facilities that were implemented between 2010 and 2011 as a part of the CIVITAS Initiative project. There are a total of seven initiatives, including a new bicycle counter, bicycle air pumps, and Route 100 signage. The initiatives are discussed in more specificity in this past blogpost. All questions included in Section Six of the survey addressed these initiatives, repeating questions asked in a survey given by Aalborg Municipality in 2011. Respondents were asked if they are familiar with initiatives and the importance they place on each individual initiative. The research team assumes that more familiarity and importance implies that the facility supplies something significant to the physical environment.

The  Embodied User

2-B.1   What does the route afford and prevent to different types of Route 100 users?

It is expected that different types of Route 100 users experience different benefits and hindrances when using the route. By looking at identifying questions from the survey, an analysis of how, or if, affordances are dissimilar for different types of users is possible. Survey question 2.1 allows the research team to analyze the results of the survey considering whether or not respondents are regular route users, if they have only used it once before, etc. Additionally, question 2.4 highlights the primary purpose respondents have for using the route.  Moreover, questions from Section One allow analysis considering age, gender, and length of residency in the local area.

These various possible categories can used to explore how various types of users are affected by the route. The research team assume the possibility that particular user types might perceive Route 100 differently. Based on the logic presented by Gibson, these contrasting perceptions might highlight differences in what is afforded and prevented to each type of user. Particular types of infrastructure addressed in survey question 5.1 or facilities presented in Section Six may appeal more or less to different types of users. Contrasts in responses might be a result of familiarity with or experiences of Route 100. 

The majority of questions in  Section Five of the survey broach the topic of motivations and deterrents. While these inquires are primarily of interest to the look "from below", wisdom might be gained by looking at how motivations and deterrents vary among different types of users.

The Social Interactions

2-C.1   Are social interactions afforded along Route 100?

The research team assumes that because Route 100 is intended to be a commuter route, most users ride the route alone. While users may be using the route alone, all of the solo riders are inadvertently sharing the route. Gibson's theory supposes that the concentration of animals in an environment breeds the potential for greater, more valuable affordances through their interaction. Applying this theory to infrastructure, it is interesting to consider whether the presence of more users has positive or negative impacts to the users. Do clusters of riders afford the possibility useful and enjoyable interactions? Or, do accumulation of bicyclists along the route prevent individual riders from using the route as they prefer? 

This question is not addressed through the Route 100 user survey, as it was determined too complex to approach and truly understand through the online questionnaire. Instead, during the post-survey interviews, the research team asked interviewees to describe how they experience the route when using it with others. Additionally, interviewees were asked where nodes of activity occur along the route, aiming to pin-point places where interactions are more likely to take place. The answers to these interview questions will be used to gain a better grasp on the existence of interactions along Route 100, and the role they play for riders.

"From Above"

2-D.1   What affordances does Route 100 aim to provide bicyclists?

All seven CIVITAS Initiatives were put into action in order to target three specific goals collaboratively established by CIVITAS and Aalborg Municipality. These goals aim to improve: 1) free flow conditions for cyclist; 2) traffic safety; and 3) visibility and service. Whether or not these affordances are provided to Route 100 users is further explored with the look "fro below".

"From Below"

2-E.1   Are the project goals achieved from the perspective of Route 100 users?

The survey provides insight into the first goal by scrutinizing how efficient Route 100 is. This is primarily approached in the survey by asking respondents to indicate how efficient they believe route is on a scale of 1 to 10 in question 7.4. Bicycle safety is likewise approached through the survey by asking respondents to rate how safe they think Route 100 is to ride in question 7.5. In addition to this subjective rating, respondents are also asked to reveal if they have been in an accident along Route 100, and where, in question 4.4. 

The project's third goal, aims to increase the allure of riding a bicycle. As has been stated, the questions in Section Six address each of initiative carried out in the process of developing Route 100. It is assumed that the visibility of bicycling is related to how many of the initiatives respondents state they are aware of in question 6.1. The importance of each initiative, demonstrated in the section's remaining questions, might be used to indicate the level of service these expenditures provide to route users.  Question 7.1 asks respondents to rate the condition of Route 100 and 7.2 on a 1 to 10 scale. These ratings might also provide insight as to whether the route is providing adequate services and allure for bicyclists.

Moreover, connivence, safety, and maintenance are all included on the lists of potential motivations and deterrents on the questions asked in Section Five. Based on the frequency with which these possible responses are selected by respondents, a deeper analysis of how well these goals are currently achieved might be possible.

2-E.2   What factors create affordances for Route 100 users?

This question is very similar to one of the sub-qusetions defined for the the primary research question of this research project. To better understand what Route 100 is, the research team is interested in what inspires and discourages users to use the route. Refining this inquiry, this question aims to explore what influence motivations and deterrents have on the affordances provided. Questions 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 ask respondents to indicate what motivate them to ride a bicycle and to use Route 100, respectively. Those motivations  which are common responses to 5.2.2 are assumed to highlight specific elements of Route 100 that respondents and users find attractive or pleasant. 

The survey additionally asked respondents to pin-point deterrents to using a bicycle and riding on Route 100 expressed through questions 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. The research team plans to use the responses to these questions in order to augment knowledge of what Route 100 affords by understanding what prevents respondents from using the route. 

Sources

Afford. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/afford (accessed: January 17, 2014).

Prevent. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Prevent (accessed: January 17, 2014).

Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Associates , Inc: Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1986.