Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
xueqi ding
 -- 1292 2023-11-15 08:08:47 |
2 format correct
Catherine Yang
 Meta information modification 1292 2023-11-15 08:57:05 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Liu, Y.; Ding, X.; Ji, Y. Enhancing Walking Accessibility in Urban Transportation. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51585 (accessed on 28 April 2024).
Liu Y, Ding X, Ji Y. Enhancing Walking Accessibility in Urban Transportation. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51585. Accessed April 28, 2024.
Liu, Yong, Xueqi Ding, Yanjie Ji. "Enhancing Walking Accessibility in Urban Transportation" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51585 (accessed April 28, 2024).
Liu, Y., Ding, X., & Ji, Y. (2023, November 15). Enhancing Walking Accessibility in Urban Transportation. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51585
Liu, Yong, et al. "Enhancing Walking Accessibility in Urban Transportation." Encyclopedia. Web. 15 November, 2023.
Enhancing Walking Accessibility in Urban Transportation
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/info14110595

The rise in “urban diseases” like population density, traffic congestion, and environmental pollution has renewed attention to urban livability. Walkability, a critical measure of pedestrian friendliness, has gained prominence in urban and transportation planning.

walkability perceived accessibility

1. Introduction

Modern urban planning often prioritizes functional zoning, focusing primarily on developing and constructing spaces for production and industry, sometimes neglecting the city’s essential role as a living space for its inhabitants. In recent years, a rise in “urban diseases” such as population density, traffic congestion, and environmental pollution has compelled society to reevaluate the livability of cities for human well-being. This has led to a renewed focus on the quality of life for urban dwellers.
Japan, as a pioneer, introduced the concept of the “living circle”. This concept represents a fundamental unit designed to meet the daily work and life needs of residents within a reasonable walking distance. Moreover, it aims to cater to both the material and spiritual needs of inhabitants, taking into consideration the well-being of individuals of all ages [1]. Carlos Moreno advocated the “15-minute city” concept, emphasizing that cities should be developed in a way that allows residents to access all essential amenities within a 15 min walk or bike ride [2]. The community living circle emphasizes a more humane and personalized design, integrating functions such as work, life, recreation, and transportation to create a convenient and comfortable living environment while also providing novel ideas and directions for sustainable urban development. Wei et al. highlighted the ideal living space characteristics, including moderate scale, high walkability, open and inclusive public spaces, and convenient transportation based on the balance of supply and demand [3].
Walkability refers to the pedestrian friendliness of the built environment and serves as a measure of how effectively it encourages walking. Studying walkability plays a critical role for urban and transportation planners in creating more pedestrian-friendly cities. Moreover, improving walkability proves to be an effective way to encourage residents to walk more, thereby maintaining their physical and mental health. Hence, it becomes meaningful to study walking accessibility. He et al. quantified walkability based on four pedestrian needs: safety, convenience, continuity, and attractiveness [4]. Ha et al. studied the walkability characteristics of TRIS’ first and last miles using household travel survey data from Seoul’s metropolitan area [5]. Xiao et al. conducted a spatial analysis of survey data collected across the United States to assess the spatial accessibility of National Park System units for different racial groups, considering the relationship between limited spatial accessibility, marginalization, subcultural differences, and discrimination [6]. Other experts utilized the walkability index calculation to conduct walkability analysis and provide insights for future urban construction and transportation planning [7][8].

2. Walking Perceived Accessibility

Accessibility plays a crucial role in various aspects, including the evaluation and design of public transportation systems. It enables individuals to engage in social interactions and participate in activities that mitigate social exclusion, discrimination [9][10], and enhance overall well-being [11]. Despite the introduction of the accessibility concept as early as the 1950s [12], perceived accessibility has often been neglected [13]. Perceived accessibility refers to the ease with which individuals can attain life satisfaction through the transportation system [14]. It serves as a complementary approach to the conventional and objective accessibility studies. Objective measures may not adequately capture accessibility in terms of life experiences and feelings [15].
Among the factors affecting the use of transportation systems, a growing number of scholars recognize that people’s participation in daily activities depends on their perception of the safety [16][17] and quality [18] of transportation services. Appropriate facility design can promote walking without compromising safety and convenience [19][20]. Frimann et al. argued that perceived accessibility is closely linked to perceptions of safety and service quality [21]. The level of pedestrian satisfaction with walking accessibility is closely linked to the perceived ease of access to daily living facilities, which are necessary for fulfilling walking needs in urban environments. Table 1 presents a comprehensive list of factors identified in various studies that have an impact on the perceived walkability.
Table 1. Factors influencing perceived walkability.
No. Authors Methods Influencing Factors
1 Hagen [22] Survey Health, mobility, safety, reliability, convenience, comfort, and aesthetics.
2 Humpel [18] Review Accessibility of facilities, opportunities for activity, weather, safety, and aesthetic attributes.
3 Tsukaguchi [23] Survey The number and level of services provided by pedestrian infrastructure
4 Gallin [24] The pedestrian level of service approach Walking conditions on a route, path, or facility, which is linked directly to factors that affect mobility, comfort, and safety.
5 Kelly [19] Stated preference surveys; on-the-street survey; on-the-move survey The risk of accidents, bad weather, theft, and other factors cause people to avoid walking long distances. People tend to walk farther and more frequently if high quality sidewalk facilities are provided.
6 Owen, Neville [25] Review The aesthetic nature of the local environment, the convenience of facilities for walking, accessibility of places to walk to, level of traffic on roads, and composites of environmental attributes.
7 Brownson, Ross C [26] Review Community environments, parks, and trails, population density, land use mix, access to recreational facilities, and street pattern.
8 Leslie, Eva [27] Neighborhood environment attribute ratings Attributes of residential density, land use mix (access and diversity) and street connectivity, traffic safety, and safety from crime attributes.
9 Badland, Hannah [28] Review Population density, subdivision age, street connectivity, and mixed land use
10 Carnegie [20] Population survey The aesthetics of the environment (such as attractive scenery) and convenience.
11 Giles-Corti [16] Cross-sectional survey Attractive neighborhood with sidewalks and shops.
12 Jaskiewicz [29] Survey Dividing fence, road red line width.
13 Ha Eunji [30] Green Score evaluation system Urban landscape: Incorporating natural elements in the urban landscape promotes interaction and enhances the overall walking experience. Public seating areas can also encourage casual walking.
14 Pratiwi [31] Hierarchical analysis, SEM Safety, mobility, and convenience: Ensuring safety, mobility, and convenience are crucial aspects of creating pedestrian-friendly environments. This includes measures such as crime prevention, adequate separation of traffic modes, clear traffic signs, and well-maintained roads. Additionally, amenities such as green spaces, appealing views, and easy access to facilities contribute to a positive walking experience.
15 Xu Yiwen [32] Location evaluation system of urban community public service facilities Spatial environment perception and behavioral perception. The perception of the spatial environment can be understood through visual perception, traffic perception, and psychological perception. Behavioral perception encompasses recommendation behavior and participation behavior, which are influenced by the overall perception of the environment.
16 Jehle [33] Review, survey Directness, simplicity, traffic safety, security, comfort, and built environment.

2. Objective Influences on Walking Accessibility

Walkability is influenced by various objective factors, mainly divided into dimensions such as the built environment, policy, and socioeconomic attributes. Researchers used estimated least squares regression and geographically weighted regression models (GWR) to study the relationship between service accessibility and sociodemographic and environmental variables [34][35][36]. Duncan et al. demonstrated that Walk Score effectively estimates neighborhood walkability across multiple geographic locations and spatial scales [37]. Because of its effectiveness and affordability, perhaps not surprisingly, use and acceptance of Walk Score as a means to assess walkability has increased over time. However, Walk Score primarily emphasizes the proximity to amenities while disregarding other crucial facets of pedestrian accessibility. There exist diverse conceptualizations and definitions of walkability, and researchers have examined various factors associated with it. Consequently, most studies refrain from solely relying on Walk Score as the sole measure of walkability. Instead, they incorporate additional indicators to provide a more comprehensive assessment [38]. Wang et al. proposed a spatial probit model of commuters’ mode choice (cycling versus noncycling), considering spatial autocorrelation [39]. Scholars have also focused on walkability inequality in urban community living circles and explored its relationship with disadvantaged groups within communities from spatial and statistical perspectives [40]. Xu et al. argued that significant social inequalities in park accessibility exist under public transport, walking, and cycling modes [41]. Imran et al. analyzed three social indicators of health, education, and municipal facilities using global and local Moran indices [42]. The results of their study will aid policy-makers in prioritizing resources to achieve spatial and opportunity equality.®®®

References

  1. Liu, S. Research on Measurement and Optimization of 15-Minute Urban Community Life Circle in Historic Areaes. Master’s Thesis, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, 2021.
  2. Moreno, C.; Allam, Z.; Chabaud, D.; Gall, C.; Pratlong, F. Introducing the ‘15-Minute City’: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 93–111.
  3. Wei, W.; Hong, M.; Xie, B. Demand-supply Matching Oriented 15-minute Community Life Circle Demarcation and Spatial Optimization. Planners 2019, 35, 11–17.
  4. He, X.; He, S.Y. Using open data and deep learning to explore walkability in Shenzhen, China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 118, 103696.
  5. Ha, J.; Ki, D.; Lee, S.; Ko, J. Mode choice and the first-/last-mile burden: The moderating effect of street-level walkability. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 116, 103646.
  6. Xiao, X.; Aultman-Hall, L.; Manning, R.; Voigt, B. The impact of spatial accessibility and perceived barriers on visitation to the US national park system. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 68, 205–214.
  7. Wu, J.; Shen, N. Walk score method-based evaluation of social service function of urban park green lands in Futian district Shenzhen, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 7483–7492.
  8. Zhou, Y.; Li, G. Evaluation and District Comparison of Life Convenience Index in 15-Minute Walking Circle: A Case Study of Chengdu Central City. Shanghai Urban Plan. Rev. 2018, 27, 78–82.
  9. Farrington, J.; Farrington, C. Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice: Towards conceptualisation. J. Transp. Geogr. 2005, 13, 1–12.
  10. Church, A.; Frost, M.; Sullivan, K. Transport and social exclusion in London. Transp. Policy 2000, 7, 195–205.
  11. Ettema, D.; Gärling, T.; Olsson, L.E.; Friman, M. Out-of-home activities, daily travel, and subjective well-being. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2010, 44, 723–732.
  12. Hansen, W.G. How accessibility shapes land use. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1959, 25, 73–76.
  13. Curl, A.; Nelson, J.D.; Anable, J. Does Accessibility Planning address what matters? A review of current practice and practitioner perspectives. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2011, 2, 3–11.
  14. Lättman, K.; Olsson, L.E.; Friman, M. Development and test of the Perceived Accessibility Scale (PAC) in public transport. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 54, 257–263.
  15. Angela, C. The importance of understanding perceptions of accessibility when addressing transport equity: A case study in Greater Nottingham, UK. J. Transp. Land Use 2018, 11, 1147–1162.
  16. Giles-Corti, B.; Donovan, R.J. Socioeconomic Status Differences in Recreational Physical Activity Levels and Real and Perceived Access to a Supportive Physical Environment. Prev. Med. 2002, 35, 601–611.
  17. Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Black, J.B.; Chen, D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1552–1558.
  18. Humpel, N.; Owen, N.; Leslie, E. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: A review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 22, 188–199.
  19. Kelly, C.E.; Tight, M.R.; Hodgson, F.C.; Page, M.W. A comparison of three methods for assessing the walkability of the pedestrian environment. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1500–1508.
  20. Carnegie, M.A.; Bauman, A.; Marshall, A.L.; Mohsin, M.; Westley-Wise, V.; Booth, M.L. Perceptions of the Physical Environment, Stage of Change for Physical Activity, and Walking Among Australian Adults. Aahperd American Alliance For Health Physical. United States. 2002, pp. 146–155. Available online: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=RN115053802&lang=zh-cn&site=eds-live (accessed on 12 October 2023).
  21. Friman, M.; Lättman, K.; Olsson, L.E.P. Public Transport Quality, Safety, and Perceived Accessibility. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3563.
  22. Hagen, M.V. Wensen van reizigers: Piramide van Maslov. In Een Gouden Markt–Waarom Marketing van Openbaar Vervoer Moet & Loont; KPVV: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2006.
  23. Hiroshi, T.; Kuang-Yih, Y.E.H.; Shinji, S.; Upali, V. Comparison of Attitudes toward walking in japanese cities. J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 2007, 7, 1794.
  24. Gallin, N. Quantifying pedestrian friendliness-guidelines for assessing pedestrian level of service. ARRB Transp. Res. 2001, 10, 47–55.
  25. Owen, N.; Humpel, N.; Leslie, E.; Bauman, A.; Sallis, J.F. Understanding environmental influences on walking: Review and research agenda. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2004, 27, 67–76.
  26. Brownson, R.C.; Hoehner, C.M.; Day, K.; Forsyth, A.; Sallis, J.F. Measuring the Built Environment for Physical Activity: State of the Science. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009, 36, S99–S123.e112.
  27. Leslie, E.; Saelens, B.; Frank, L.; Owen, N.; Bauman, A.; Coffee, N.; Hugo, G. Residents’ perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighbourhoods: A pilot study. Health Place 2005, 11, 227–236.
  28. Badland, H.; Schofield, G. Transport, urban design, and physical activity: An evidence-based update. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2005, 10, 177–196.
  29. Jaskiewicz, F. Pedestrian Level of Service Based on Trip Quality. 2000. Available online: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_g1.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2023).
  30. Ha, E.; Joo, Y.; Jun, C. Green Score: An Evaluation Scheme for Pedestrian Environment. In Proceedings of the Geospatial World Forum, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 18–21 September 2011.
  31. Pratiwi, A.R.; Zhao, S.; Mi, X. Quantifying the relationship between visitor satisfaction and perceived accessibility to pedestrian spaces on festival days. Front. Archit. Res. 2015, 4, 285–295.
  32. Yiwen, X. Research on Location of Public Service Facilities in Urban Communities. Ph.D. Thesis, China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, China, 2021.
  33. Jehle, U.; Coetzee, C.; Büttner, B.; Pajares, E.; Wulfhorst, G. Connecting people and places: Analysis of perceived pedestrian accessibility to railway stations by Bavarian case studies. J. Urban Mobil. 2022, 2, 100025.
  34. Calafiore, A.; Dunning, R.; Nurse, A.; Singleton, A. The 20-minute city: An equity analysis of Liverpool City Region. Transp. Res. Part D 2022, 102, 103111.
  35. Insu, H.; Changsok, Y. Analyzing Spatial Variance of Airbnb Pricing Determinants Using Multiscale GWR Approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 103111.
  36. Wang, C.-H.; Chen, N. A geographically weighted regression approach to investigating the spatially varied built-environment effects on community opportunity. J. Transp. Geogr. 2017, 62, 136–147.
  37. Steven, J.M.; Steven, L.G.; John, W.; Jared, A.; Dustin, T.D. Validation of Walk Score® for Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An Analysis of Four US Metropolitan Areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 4160–4179.
  38. Hall, C.M.; Ram, Y. Walk score® and its potential contribution to the study of active transport and walkability: A critical and systematic review. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 61, 310–324.
  39. Wang, C.-H.; Akar, G.; Guldmann, J.-M. Do your neighbors affect your bicycling choice? A spatial probit model for bicycling to The Ohio State University. J. Transp. Geogr. 2015, 42, 122–130.
  40. Bereitschaft, B. Equity in neighbourhood walkability? A comparative analysis of three large U.S. cities. Local Environ. 2017, 22, 859–879.
  41. Xu, M.; Xin, J.; Su, S.; Weng, M.; Cai, Z. Social inequalities of park accessibility in Shenzhen, China: The role of park quality, transport modes, and hierarchical socioeconomic characteristics. J. Transp. Geogr. 2017, 62, 38–50.
  42. Imran, M.; Sumra, K.; Abbas, N.; Majeed, I. Spatial distribution and opportunity mapping: Applicability of evidence-based policy implications in Punjab using remote sensing and global products. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 50, 101652.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Transportation
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Yong Liu
,
Xueqi Ding
,
Yanjie Ji
View Times: 213
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 Nov 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback