Towards a New Walking Evaluation Approach: Power of Surveys and Route-based Evaluations in GIS Environment

Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 212 - 226, 30.11.2022

Hediye Tuydes-yaman , Pınar Karataş Sevinen , Zeynep Pinar Oncu , Gulcin Dalkic

https://doi.org/10.34088/kojose.1004404

Abstract

Walking is a critical mode to be encouraged in sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs). However, the lack of analysis methodology is making it challenging to detect walkability aspects necessary to develop better policies. Middle East Technical University (METU) Campus was designed with a pedestrian-friendly layout which has been threatened recently by different factors (i.e. enlargement of the campus, changing traffic volumes, etc.). This necessitated further investigation of walking and walkability in the campus, which was the main scope of the most recent survey, designed to investigate a) pedestrian perspective and b) walking limits on campus. While the former was investigated via traditional questions, the latter was sought after via map-based 1844 routes from 623 participating students. Besides the descriptive statistics performed by the responses to the traditional evaluation questions, the route-based data resulted in enriched analyses, proving the power of the latter in evaluating walkability, which has a spatial variation by nature. Consideration of both traditional survey approaches accompanied by the route-based investigations enabled the development of a more comprehensive understanding of walkability of the study area, which should be used in the evaluation of pedestrian mobility in urban pedestrian analysis zones, i.e. city centers, metro station capture zones, campuses, etc.

Keywords

Pedestrian, Campus, Survey, Walking, Walkability, GIS

References

• [1] Litman, T., 2003. Economic Value of Walkability. Transportation Research Record, 1828 (1), pp. 3–11.
• [2] Abley, S. 2005. Walkability Scoping Paper. Retrieved March, February 2.
• [3] TuydesYaman, H., Karatas, P. and Altintasi, O. 2015. Lessons Learnt from METU Campus Walkability Evaluations. Transportation Research Board (TRB) 94th Annual Meeting, 11-15 January.
• [4] Karatas, P. and TuydesYaman, H. 2016. A pairwise Comparison of Different Pedestrian LevelofService (PLOS) Ratings. Transportation Research Board (TRB) 95th Annual Meeting, 8-12 January.
• [5] Manaugh, K., and El-Geneidy., A. 2011. Validating Walkability Indices: How Do Different Households Respond to the Walkability of Their Neighborhood. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16 (4). pp. 309–15.
• [6] Gori, S., Nigro, M., &Petrelli, M. 2014. Walkability Indicators for Pedestrian Friendly Design. Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, January 1–11.
• [7] Azmi, D. I. and Hafazah, A. K. 2012. Implications of Walkability Towards Promoting Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 50, July 04–13.
• [8] Blecic, I., Cecchini, A., and Trunfio, G. A. 2015. Towards a Design Support System for Urban Walkability. Procedia Computer Science 51. Elsevier Masson SAS: 2157–67.
• [9] Dovey, K. and Pafka, E. 2020. What is walkability? The Urban DMA. Urban Studies, 57 (1), pp. 93-108.
• [10] Bias, T. K., Leyden, K. M., Abildso, C. G., Reger-Nash, B., & Bauman, A. 2010. The importance of being parsimonious: reliability of a brief community walkability assessment instrument. Health & Place, 16(4), pp.755–758.
• [11] Millington, C., Ward Thompson, C., Rowe, D., Aspinall, P., Fitzsimons, C., Nelson, N., &Mutrie, N. 2009. Development of the Scottish Walkability Assessment Tool (SWAT). Health & Place, 15(2), pp.474–81.
• [12] Peiravian, F., Derrible, S. and Ijaz, F. 2014. Development and Application of the Pedestrian Environment Index (PEI). Journal of Transport Geography 39. Elsevier Ltd: 73–84.
• [13] Keyvanfar, A., Ferwati, M. S., Shafaghat, A., and Lamit, H. A. 2018. Path Walkability Assessment Index Model for Evaluating and Facilitating Retail Walking Using Decision-Tree-Making (DTM) Method. Sustainability10, 1035.
• [14] Garau, C., Annunziata, A. and Yamu, C. A. 2020. Walkability Assessment Tool Coupling Multi-Criteria Analysis and Space Syntax: Case Study of Iglesias, Italy. European Planning Studies.
• [15] Labdaoui, K., Mazouz, S., Moeinaddini, M., Cools, M., and Teller, J. 2021. The Street Walkability and Thermal Comfort Index (SWTCI): A new assessment tool combining street design measurements and thermal comfort. Science of Total Environment 795, 148663.
• [16] Front Seat Management, LLC. Walk Score® Methodology. 2011. Retrieved from https://www.walkscore.com/methodology, at September 8,2021.
• [17] Azmi, D. I., Hafazah, A. K., and Mohd Zamreen, M. A. 2012. Comparing the Walking Behaviour between Urban and Rural Residents. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68. Elsevier B.V.: 406–16.
• [18] Azmi, D. I., Hafazah A. K., and Puziah A. 2013. Comparative Study of Neighbourhood Walkability to Community Facilities between Two Precincts in Putrajaya. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105. Elsevier B.V.: 513–24.
• [19] Karim, H. A., and Diyanah I. A. 2013. Convenience and Safety of Walking Experience in Putrajaya Neighbourhood Area. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 101. Elsevier B.V.: 318–27.
• [20] Liu, B., Zhi, W. W., and Yu B. Z. 2014. Investigating Pedestrian Behavior Differences of Walking Streets and Their Effect Factors with Three Wuhu Cases. Applied Mechanics and Materials 587-589: 1879–83.
• [21] Humpel, N., Neville, O., Iverson, D., Leslie, E., and Bauman, A. 2004. Perceived Environment Attributes, Residential Location, and Walking for Particular Purposes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 26 (2), pp.119–25.
• [22] Park, S., Deakin, E., and Lee, J. S. 2014. Perception-Based Walkability Index to Test Impact of Microlevel Walkability on Sustainable Mode Choice Decisions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2464, pp. 126–34.
• [23] Fairnie, G A, Wilby, D. J. R. and Saunders, L. E. 2016. Active Travel in London: The Role of Travel Survey Data in Describing Population Physical Activity. Journal of Transport and Health, 3 (2). Elsevier: 161–72.
• [24] Lu, Y., Sarkar, C., and Xiao, Y. 2018. The effect of street-level greenery on walking behavior: Evidence from Hong Kong. Social Science & Medicine 208, pp. 41-49.
• [25] Li, S., Zhao, P., Zhang, H., and Quan, J. 2019. Walking behavior in the old downtown Beijing: The impact of perceptions and attitudes and social variations. Transport Policy, 73, pp. 1-11.
• [26] Akar, G., Flynn, C. and Namgung, M. 2012. Travel Choices and Links to Transportation Demand Management Case Study at Ohio State University. Transportation Research Record, no. 2319, pp. 77–85.
• [27] Lee, J., Shepley, M.M. 2020. College Campuses and StudentWalkability Assessing the Impact of Smartphone Use on Student Perception and Evaluation of Urban Campus Routes. Sustainability 12, MPDI.
• [28] Baran, P.K., Smith, W.R., Türkoğlu, H.D., Marans, R.W., Bölen, F. 2009. Walking Behavior in Istanbul: Individual Attributes, Neighborhood Context and Perceived Safety. A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 6(1), pp. 21-40.
• [29] Kirimtat, A., Paykoç Ozcelik, E. 2015. Walkability Assessment of Mavişehir-Alaybey Coast Region in İzmir, Turkey: Building, Green Area and Path Analyses. International Congress Energy and Environment Engineering and Management.
• [30] Ozbil, A., Argin, G., Yesiltepe, D. 2016. Pedestrian route choice by elementary school students: the role of street network configuration and pedestrian quality attributes in walking to school. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 4(2), pp. 67-84.
• [31] Unal, M., Uslu, C. 2016. GIS-Based Accessibility Analysis of Urban Emergency Shelters: The Case of Adana City. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry. Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-2/W1, 2016 3rd International GeoAdvances Workshop, 16–17 October 2016, Istanbul, Turkey
• [32] Ceylan, R. 2018. A GIS-Based Walkable Service Area Analysis from a Smart Growth Perspective in the City of Edirne. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Sustainability, 2018.
• [33] Vural-Arslan, T., Durak, S., Dizdar-Gebesce, F., Balcik, B. 2018. Assessment of Factors Influencing Walkability in Shopping Streets of Tourism Cities: Case of Bursa, Turkey. International Tourism Studies Association, 4(3), pp. 330-341.
• [34] Doğan, U. 2021. Examining Urban Design Characteristics of City Centers Using Walkability Criteria: Case of Turkey. ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(2).
• [35] Rashidi, S. 2019. Analyzing Safety Toward a Walkable Campus: A Case Study of Middle East Technical University. Master Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, City and Regional Planning Department, Ankara, Turkey.
• [36] Hsiao, S., Lu, J, Sterling, J., and Weatherford, M. 1997. Use of Geographic Information System for Analysis of Transit Pedestrian Access. Transportation Research Record, 1604(1), pp. 50–59.
• [37] Schlossberg, M. 2006. From TIGER to Audit Instruments: Measuring Neighborhood Walkability with Street Data Based on Geographic Information Systems. Transportation Research Record, 1982(1), pp. 48–56.
• [38] Owen, N., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., duToit, L., Coffee, N., Frank, L.D., Bauman, A.E., Hugo, G., Saelens, B.E., and Sallis, J.F. 2007. Neighborhood Walkability and the Walking Behavior of Australian Adults American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33 (5), pp. 387–95.
• [39] Leslie, E., Coffee, N., Frank, L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., & Hugo, G. 2007. Walkability of local communities: using geographic information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributes. Health & Place, 13(1), pp. 111–122.
• [40] Hajna, S., Dasgupta, K., Halparin, M., & Ross, N. A. 2013. Neighborhood walkability: field validation of geographic information system measures. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(6), pp. 51–59.
• [41] Cubukcu, E., Hepguzel, B., Onder, Z., and Tumer, B. 2015. Active Living for Sustainable Future: A Model to Measure ‘Walk Scores’ via Geographic Information Systems. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 168. Elsevier B.V.: pp. 229–37.
• [42] Ellis, G., Hunter, R., Tully, M.A, Donnelly, M., Kelleher, L. and Kee, F. 2016. Connectivity and Physical Activity: Using Footpath Networks to Measure the Walkability of Built Environments. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 43 (1), pp. 130–51.
• [43] Sun, G, Oreskovic, N M and Lin H. 2014. How Do Changes to the Built Environment Influence Walking Behaviors? A Longitudinal Study within a University Campus in Hong Kong. International Journal of Health Geographics [Electronic Resource] 13: 28.
• [44] Sun, G., Zacharias, J., Ma, B., and Oreskovic, N. 2015. How Do Metro Stations Integrate with Walking Environments? Results from Walking Access within Three Types of Built Environment in Beijing. Cities 56. Elsevier B.V.: Forthcoming.