Walkability and the complexity of walking behavior

The issue of pedestrian-friendly urban environments has been of increasing importance lately in urban planning and design. In order to develop a better knowledge about the walkability of the built environment, it is important to understand the complexity behind walking behavior. Since different kinds of walking activities vary in their goal, effort, frequency, duration, etc., they also vary in how strongly and in what aspect they are influenced by the condition of urban form. With an empirical study in three residential areas in Stockholm, Sweden, this study investigated the different types of walking activities in how they interact with the built environment. The results showed that the condition of the built environment related to the density, connectivity, and land-use diversity seems to influence the amount and diversity of walking activities and also affect how the walking activities are conducted. This is related to the degree of the potential urban form has in providing the different qualities that the pedestrians desire from the environment, which is not only related to providing walking destinations and possible routes, but also qualities that enhance the experiential quality of walking. Investigating the different aspects of walking in how they occur and are conducted in the urban environment is important in understanding why and how different conditions of the urban form discourage or encourage walking. This is not only useful in providing insights for more accurate knowledge on walkability, but also assists a better understanding and application of other urban design theories on pedestrian movement as well.

PDF

___

Boarnet, M.G., and R. Crane (2010). Travel by Design: The Infuence of Urban Form on Travel, Oxford University Press, New York.

Cervero, R. (1996). Mixed Land-uses and Commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 30, No.5: 361-377.

Choi, E. (2012). Urban Diversity and Pedestrian Behavior: Refning the Concept of Land-use Mix for Walkability, in M. Greene, J. Reyes and A. Castro (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Space Syntax Symposium, Pontifcia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 8073-1.

Choi, E. (2012). Walkability as an Urban Design Problem: Understanding the Activity of Walking in the Urban Environment, PhD dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

Crane, R., and R. Crepeau (1998). Does Neighborhood Design Infuence Travel?: A Behavioral Analysis of Travel Diary and GIS Data, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol.3, No.4: 225-238.

Ewing, R., and S. Handy (2009). Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability, Journal of Urban Design, Vol.14, No.1: 65-84.

Frank, L.D., and G. Pivo (1994). Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking, Transportation Research Record, 44-44.

Forsyth, A., J.M. Oakes, K.H. Schmitz, and M. Hearst (2007). Does Residential Density Increase Walking and Other Physical Activity?, Urban Studies, Vol.44, No.4: 679-697.

Forsyth, A., M. Hearst, J.M. Oakes, and K.H. Schmitz (2008). Design and Destinations: Factors Infuencing Walking and Total Physical Activity, Urban Studies, Vol.45, No.9: 1973-1996.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Handy, S.L. (1996). Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices: Study of Austin Neighborhoods, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol.1552, No.1: 135-144.

Heath, G.W., R.C. Brownson, J. Kruger, R. Miles, K.E. Powell, and L.T. Ramsey (2006). The Effectiveness of Urban Design and Land Use and Transport Policies and Practices to Increase Physical Activity: A Systematic Review, Journal of Physical Activity & Health, Vol.3, No.S55.

Hillier, B., and J. Hanson (1984). The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hillier, B., A. Penn, J. Hanson, T. Grajewski, and J. Xu (1993). Natural Movement -or, Confguration and Attraction in Urban Pedestrian Movement, Environment and Planning B, Vol. 20, No.1: 29-66.

Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the Machine: A Confgurational Theory of Architecture, University Press, Cambridge.

Kitamura, R., P.L. Mokhtarian, and L. Laidet (1997). A Micro-analysis of Land Use and Travel in Five Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area, Transportation, Vol.24, No.2: 125-158.

Kockelman, K.M. (1997). Travel Behavior as Function of Accessibility, Land Use Mixing, and Land Use Balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol.1607, No.1: 116-125.

Lee, C., and A.V. Moudon (2006). Correlates of Walking for Transportation or Recreation Purposes, Journal of Physical Activity & Health. Vol.3, No.S77.

Leslie, E., B. Saelens, L. Frank, N. Owen, A. Bauman, N. Coffee, and G. Hugo (2005). Residents' Perceptions of Walkability Attributes in Objectively Different Neighbourhoods: A Pilot Study, Health & Place, Vol.11, No.3: 227-236.

Marcus, L. (2000). Architectural Knowledge and Urban Form, PhD dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

Messenger, T., and R. Ewing (1996). Transit-oriented Development in the Sun Belt, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol.1552, No.1: 145-153.

Moudon, A.V., P.M. Hess, M.C. Snyder, and K. Stanilov (1997). Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed-use, Medium-density Environments, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol.1578, No.1: 48-55.

Penn, A., B. Hillier, D. Banister, and J. Xu (1998). Confgurational Modelling of Urban Movement Networks, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol.25, No.1: 59-84.

Peponis, J., C. Ross, and M. Rashid (1997). The Structure of Urban Space, Movement and Co-presence: The Case of Atlanta, Geoforum, Vol.28, No.3: 341-358.

Rodríguez, D.A., A.J. Khattak, and K.R. Evenson (2006). Can New Urbanism Encourage Physical Activity?: Comparing a New Urbanist Neighborhood with Conventional Suburbs, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol.72, No.1: 43-54.

Saelens, B.E., J.F. Sallis, J.B. Black, and D. Chen (2003a). Neighborhoodbased Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation, American Journal of Public Health, Vol.93, No.9: 1552-1558.

Saelens, B.E., J.F. Sallis, and L.D. Frank (2003b). Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling: Findings from the Transportation, Urban Design, and Planning Literatures, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Vol.25, No.2: 80-91.

Stonor, T., M.B. Arruda-Campos, and A. Smith (2002). Towards a Walkability Index, Proceedings of Walk21 3rd Annual International Conference, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain.

Ståhle, A., L. Marcus, and A. Karlström (2005). Place Syntax: Geographic Accessibility with Axial Lines in GIS, in Akkelies van Nes (ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands, pp.131-144.