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.

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.^®®®