Your feedback in response to our surveys and focus groups

There were mixed views on air quality in the wards in both the before and after survey, with the percentage of respondents thinking air quality isn’t very good increasing in the post-project survey.

Holloway Road, Blackstock Road, Newington Green and St Paul’s Road were commonly given as areas respondents felt had poor pollution in both the before and after survey.

There was a range of opinions about whether pollution is getting better or worse in both surveys. However, a larger percentage thought air pollution is getting worse in the post-project survey.

Respondents felt road transport was the largest pollution source in both surveys. In the second survey a large proportion also identified LTNs as a big pollution source.

Walking and public transport were popular transport methods in both the before and after survey. Less respondents were cycling in the follow up survey and more driving, but this was still used by relatively few respondents in both surveys.

In the before project survey the majority of respondents said they planned to walk to reduce air pollution emissions or exposure, with many also using low pollution routes and cycling. In the post project survey the most common answer given was no action, followed by walking and low pollution routes.

Cycle lanes were the most well-known initiative in the area for both surveys. Lots of respondents were also aware of cycle training, air quality monitoring, wider London schemes, School Streets, Liveable Neighbourhoods and anti-idling. Of these schemes respondents felt wider London schemes, air quality monitoring and anti-idling were the most effective.

Respondents gave a mix of responses in terms of initiatives they would like to see in the area. In both surveys this included a mix of those wanting more and less traffic restrictions. More respondents wanted to see increased engagement in the before project survey and more wanted to see LTNs removed in the post project survey.

Website survey:

The majority of respondents agreed that the website increased their knowledge of local air quality, however only about half said they would use the website again.

The majority of respondents said the website was easy to understand, finding the overall average and map the most useful features.

When asked how the website could be improved, the largest response was to make the website clearer. More specific suggestions on increasing clarity were around additional information to explain and put the data into context, colour coded data, bigger graph display, more pictures and symbols and making it simpler.

Focus group:

In regards to the text explainer page respondents liked the simple, accessible text, and found the website easy to use. Many respondents liked the level of detail, especially if they had little prior knowledge of air pollution. However, some found the amount of information overwhelming.

In regards to the data webpage respondents found the map the most useful feature. However, respondents wanted help interpreting the results, felt the site could be made clearer, accessibility could be improved and the site made more mobile user friendly.

Respondents felt the site helped them learn more about air quality, especially if they had little prior knowledge, and found the depth of information useful if they had an existing interest in air quality data.

Respondents had a mixed response about whether they would use the site again. Some were going to share the site with groups they were involved with and some would use the site when out and about, as part of a daily check or to look at impacts of local project, if the site was improved. The main barrier to re-use was the complexity of the site for those without existing air quality knowledge.