A new assessment model to evaluate the microscale sidewalk design factors at the neighbourhood level

Aghaabbasi, M.; Moeinaddini, Mehdi; Zaly Shah, M.; Asadi-Shekari, Z.

doi:10.1016/j.jth.2016.08.012

Request a copy

Article (Scientific journals)

A new assessment model to evaluate the microscale sidewalk design factors at the neighbourhood level

Aghaabbasi, M.; Moeinaddini, Mehdi; Zaly Shah, M. et al.

2017 • In Journal of Transport and Health, 5, p. 97-112

Peer reviewed

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/249950

DOI
10.1016/j.jth.2016.08.012

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

TH.pdf

Publisher postprint (400.39 kB)

Request a copy

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

Microscale factors; Neighbourhood-level; Residents’ involvement; Sidewalk assessment

Abstract :

[en] To date, several assessment tools have been developed to evaluate the pedestrian environments and sidewalks at the street and neighbourhood level. While the existing tools that assess sidewalks at the street level consider the microscale sidewalk factors, the assessment tools at the neighbourhood level neglected the importance of microlevel factors for the assessment purpose. In addition, the important role of residents in neighbourhoods in the examination and review procedure of neighbourhood facilities is overlooked. In contrast with previous assessment methods that considered macro and mesoscale factors for assessment purpose, this research has developed an assessment method to evaluate the neighbourhood sidewalks using the microscale factors. This tool has been developed in the form of a questionnaire to assess the sidewalk conditions within the neighbourhoods. The proposed tool has been tested in three neighbourhoods within Johor Bahru District in Malaysia. Most sidewalk factors in these surveys showed moderate to high reliability. The results of using the proposed tool indicate that the tool is capable of identifying the drawbacks of neighbourhood sidewalks. In addition, this tool allows the residents to convey their needs to city planners and ask for improving existing sidewalks. Lastly, the tool appears ready to be used by urban planners and researchers. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd

Disciplines :

Civil engineering
Special economic topics (health, labor, transportation...)
Architecture
Regional & inter-regional studies

Author, co-author :

Aghaabbasi, M.; Candidate in Transportation Plannig, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Moeinaddini, Mehdi ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département ArGEnCo > Transports et mobilité

Zaly Shah, M.; Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Asadi-Shekari, Z.; Researcher of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Centre for Innovative Planning and Development (CIPD), Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Language :

English

Title :

A new assessment model to evaluate the microscale sidewalk design factors at the neighbourhood level

Publication date :

2017

Journal title :

Journal of Transport and Health

ISSN :

2214-1405

eISSN :

2214-1413

Publisher :

Elsevier Ltd

Volume :

Pages :

97-112

Peer reviewed :

Peer reviewed

Available on ORBi :

since 06 August 2020

Statistics

Number of views

53 (4 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

2 (2 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. 2010, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Washington, D.C.
Akiyama, T., Kim, J.-k, Transportation Policies for the Elderly and Disabled in Japan. International Journal of Urban Sciences 9:2 (2005), 87–98.
Albers, P.N., Wright, C., Olwoch, J., Developing a south African pedestrian environment. South African Journal of Science 106:9 & 10 (2010), 1–8.
Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Guidelines for Design of Safe Accessible Pedestrian Environments. 1996, Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Edmonton, Alberta.
Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M., Zaly Shah, M., Disabled pedestrian level of service method for evaluating and promoting inclusive walking facilities on urban streets. Journal of Transportation Engineering 139:2 (2012), 181–192.
Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M., Zaly Shah, M., Disabled Pedestrian Level of Service Method for Evaluating and Promoting Inclusive Walking Facilities on Urban Streets. Journal of Transportation Engineering 139:2 (2013), 181–192.
Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M., Zaly Shah, M., A pedestrian level of service method for evaluating and promoting walking facilities on campus streets. Land Use Policy 38 (2014), 175–193.
Austrailian Government, Accessibility Design Guide: Universal design principles for Australia׳s aid program, Annex A: Built environment. Department of Forein Affairs and Trade, Canberra, 2013, 139.
Azemati, H.R., Bagheri, M., Hosseini, S.B., Maleki, S.N., An assessment of pedestrian networks in accessible neighborhoods: traditional neighborhoods in Iran. International Journal of Architectural Engineering & Urban Planning, 21, 2011, 1.
Badland, H., Schofield, G., Transport, urban design, and physical activity: an evidence-based update. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 10:3 (2005), 177–196.
Batista e Silva, J., da Graça Saraiva, M., Loupa Ramos, I., Bernardo, F., Improving Visual Attractiveness to Enhance City–River Integration—A Methodological Approach for Ongoing Evaluation. Planning Practice & Research 28:2 (2013), 163–185.
Boarnet, M.G., Day, K., Alfonzo, M., Forsyth, A., Oakes, M., The Irvine–Minnesota inventory to measure built environments: reliability tests. American journal of preventive medicine 30:2 (2006), 153–159 e143.
Boisseau, M.J., Sidewalk accessibility a study of the continuing needs of pedestrians applied to the sidewalk planning and design process. 1999, Texas Tech University.
Brownson, R.C., Ramirez, L.K.B., Hoehner, C.M., Cook, R.A., Analytic Audit Tool and Checklist Audit Tool. 2003, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, US, 1–9.
De Cambra, P.J.M., Pedestrian Accessibility and Attractiveness Indicators for Walkability Assessment. Thesis for the Master Degree (MSc), 2012, Urban Studies and Territorial Management.
Van Cauwenberg, J., Van Holle, V., Simons, D., Deridder, R., Clarys, P., Goubert, L., Nasar, J., Salmon, J., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Deforche, B., Environmental factors influencing older adults’ walking for transportation: a study using walk-along interviews. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 9(1), 2012, 85.
CEN/CENELEC, Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities. The European Committee for Standardization, The European Committee for Electrotechnical standardization, 2002, 36.
Centre for Excellence in Universal Design, Booklet 1 - External environment and approach. 2014, Centre for Excellence in Universal Design, Dublin.
Cerin, E., Chan, K.W., Macfarlane, D.J., Lee, K.Y., Lai, P.C., Objective assessment of walking environments in ultra-dense cities: development and reliability of the Environment in Asia Scan Tool–Hong Kong version (EAST-HK). Health Place 17:4 (2011), 937–945.
Cervero, R., Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 7:4 (2002), 265–284.
Christopoulou, P., Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M., Development of a model for the estimation of pedestrian level of service in Greek urban areas. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 48 (2012), 1691–1701.
City of Boston, BOSTON Complete Streets Guidlines. 2013, Boston Transportation Department, Boston, 81.
City of Minneapolis, Street and Sidewalk Design Guidelines, Pedestrian Facility Design. 2009, City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis.
City of Ottawa, Ottawa Pedestrian Plan (Final Report June 2009), Safety and Accessibility, 2009, 37.
City of Toronto, Accessibility Design Guidlines. Diversity Management and Community Engagement, TORONTO, 2004, 138.
Clifton, K.J., Livi Smith, A.D., Rodriguez, D., The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:1 (2007), 95–110.
County of Brant, Accessible Public Spaces Design Standards. County of Brant, Brant, 2013.
Crews, D.E., Zavotka, S., Aging, disability, and frailty: implications for universal design. Journal of physiological anthropology 25:1 (2006), 113–118.
Cui, J., Allan, A., Taylor, M.A., Lin, D., Developing Shanghai underground pedestrian system under urbanization: mobility, functionality and equity. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism 36:4 (2012), 283–297.
Deichmann, J., Architect, M., Nyvig, R., 2004. Accessible urban spaces–a challenge for urban designers, The Fifth International Conference on Walking in the 21st Century. Walk, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 1-8.
Dowling, R., Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets: Users Guide, 2008 Citeseer.
Emery, J., Crump, C., Bors, P., Walking and Bicycling Suitability Assessment (WABSA). 1998, UNC School of Public Health, U.S.
Emery, J., Crump, C., Bors, P., Reliability and validity of two instruments designed to assess the walking and bicycling suitability of sidewalks and roads. American journal of health promotion: AJHP 18:1 (2003), 38–46.
Evenson, K., PIN3 Neighborhood Audit Instrument. IJBNPA, U.S, 2009.
Evenson, K.R., Sotres-Alvarez, D., Herring, A.H., Messer, L., Laraia, B.A., Rodríguez, D.A., Assessing urban and rural neighborhood characteristics using audit and GIS data: derivation and reliability of constructs. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6(1), 2009, 44.
Fearnley, N., Flügel, S., Ramjerdi, F., Passengers׳ valuations of universal design measures in public transport. Research in Transportation Business & Management 2 (2011), 83–91.
Ferreira, M., Sanches, Sd.P., Proposal of a Sidewalk Accessibility Index. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering 1:1 (2007), 1–9.
Forsyth, A., Oakes, J.M., Schmitz, K.H., Test-retest reliability of the Twin Cities walking survey. Journal of physical activity & health, 6(1), 2009, 119.
Galanis, A., Eliou, N., Evaluation of the pedestrian infrastructure using walkability indicators. WSEAS Transactions on. Environment and Development 7:12 (2011), 385–394.
Galanis, A., Eliou, N., Development and Implementation of an Audit Tool for the Pedestrian Built Environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 48 (2012), 3143–3152.
George, D., Mallery, P., SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 Update, 2003, Allyn and Bacon.
Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R.J., Socioeconomic Status Differences in Recreational Physical Activity Levels and Real and Perceived Access to a Supportive Physical Environment. Preventive Medicine 35:6 (2002), 601–611.
Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R.J., Relative influences of individual, social environmental, and physical environmental correlates of walking. American journal of public health 93:9 (2003), 1583–1589.
Guo, Z., Does the pedestrian environment affect the utility of walking? A case of path choice in downtown Boston. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 14:5 (2009), 343–352.
Haans, A., de Kort, Y.A.W., Light distribution in dynamic street lighting: Two experimental studies on its effects on perceived safety, prospect, concealment, and escape. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32:4 (2012), 342–352.
Handy, S.L., Clifton, K.J., Evaluating Neighborhood Accessibility: Possibilities and Practicalities. Journal of Transportation and Statistics 4:2/3 (2001), 67–78.
Hanson, J., The Inclusive City: Delivering a more accessible urban environment through Inclusive Design, 2004.
Hernandez, D., Vulnerable Populations and the Built Environment. American Journal of Public Health 103:4 (2013), E32–E34.
Hoehner, C., Active Neighborhood Checklist, U.S, 2011.
ISO/IEC, Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities. The International Electrotechnical Commission, 2001, The International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland, 30.
Jaskiewicz, F., 2000. Pedestrian level of service based on trip quality, Transportation Research Board Circular. E-C019: Urban Street Symposium.
Kang, L., Xiong, Y., Mannering, F.L., Statistical analysis of pedestrian perceptions of sidewalk level of service in the presence of bicycles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 53 (2013), 10–21.
Kansas City Walkability Plan, Measuring walkability: Tools and assessment, 2014, 15–36.
Kelly, C.M., Schootman, M., Baker, E.A., Barnidge, E.K., Lemes, A., The association of sidewalk walkability and physical disorder with area-level race and poverty. Journal of epidemiology and community health 61:11 (2007), 978–983.
Kihl, M., Brennan, D., Gabhawala, N., List, J., Mittal, P., Livable communities: An evaluation guide. 2005, AARP Public Policy Institute.
Kim, S., Choi, J., Kim, Y., Determining the sidewalk pavement width by using pedestrian discomfort levels and movement characteristics. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 15:5 (2011), 883–889.
Kim, S., Park, S., Lee, J.S., Meso-or micro-scale? Environmental factors influencing pedestrian satisfaction. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 30 (2014), 10–20.
Krambeck, H.V., The global walkability index, 2006, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Landis, B.W., Vattikuti, V.R., Ottenberg, R.M., McLeod, D.S., Guttenplan, M., Modeling the roadside walking environment: pedestrian level of service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1773:1 (2001), 82–88.
Lee, B.J., Jang, T.Y., Wang, W., Namgung, M., Design criteria for an urban sidewalk landscape considering emotional perception. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 135:4 (2009), 133–140.
Lin, J.-J., Chang, H.-T., Built environment effects on children׳s school travel in Taipai: independence and travel mode. Urban studies 47:4 (2010), 867–889.
Andréa D. Livi, Clifton, K.J., 2004. Issues and methods in capturing pedestrian behaviours, attitudes and perceptions: Experiences with a community based walkability survey. Transportation Research Board, Annual Meeting.
MacNeil, L., Steps to a Walkable Community: A Guide for Citizens, Planners, and Engineers, 2012.
McMillan, T.E., Cubbin, C., Parmenter, B., Medina, A.V., Lee, R.E., Neighborhood sampling: how many streets must an auditor walk?. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 7, 2010, 20.
Mendoza, F., Oliver-Solà, J.-M., Gabarrell, J., Josa, X., Rieradevall, A., J., Life cycle assessment of granite application in sidewalks. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17:5 (2012), 580–592.
Millington, C., Ward Thompson, C., Rowe, D., Aspinall, P., Fitzsimons, C., Nelson, N., Mutrie, N., Collaboration, S.P.-tS.P.A.R., Development of the Scottish Walkability Assessment Tool (SWAT). Health Place 15:2 (2009), 474–481.
Mirzayi, C., Health and Place: Special Commodities in New Urban Development. Cities in the 21st Century, 2(1), 2010, 6.
Moniruzzaman, M., Paez, A., A model-based approach to select case sites for walkability audits. Health & Place 18:6 (2012), 1323–1334.
Monteiro, F.B., Campos, V.B., A proposal of indicators for evaluation of the urban space for pedestrians and cyclists in access to mass transit station. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 54 (2012), 637–645.
Muraleetharan, T., Adachi, T., Hagiwara, T., Kagaya, S., Method to determine pedestrian level-of-service for crosswalks at urban intersections. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 6:1 (2005), 127–136.
Otak, Pedestrian and streetscape guide. 2003, Georgia Department of Transportation, Georgia, 1–222.
Oxley, P.R., Britain, G., Inclusive Mobility: a guide to best practice on access to pedestrian and transport infrastructure. 2002, Department for Transport.
Painter, K., The influence of street lighting improvements on crime, fear and pedestrian street use, after dark. Landscape and urban planning 35:2 (1996), 193–201.
Petritsch, T.A., Landis, B.W., McLeod, P.S., Huang, H.F., Challa, S., Guttenplan, M., Part 2: Pedestrians: Level-of-Service Model for Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1939:1 (2005), 53–62.
Pikora, T.J., Bull, F.C., Jamrozik, K., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R.J., Developing a Reliable Audit Instrument to Measure the Physical Environment for Physical Activity. American journal of preventive medicine 23:3 (2002), 187–194.
Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Knuiman, M., Jamrozik, K., Donovan, R., Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACE). 2000, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia.
Preiser, W.F., Integrating the seven principles of universal design into planning practice. Universal Design and Visitability: From Accessibility to Zoning, The John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 2007, 11–30.
Rahim, A.A., Samad, A., Accessible built environment for the elderly and disabled in Malaysia: Hotels as case studies. Journal of Construcfion in Developing Countries 15:2 (2010), 1–21.
Rickert, T., Reeves, K., Mobility for all: accessible transportation around the world. Health and Welfare Ministries, New York, 1998, 25.
Rodrı́guez, D.A., Joo, J., The relationship between non-motorized mode choice and the local physical environment. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 9:2 (2004), 151-–1173.
Rundle, A.G., Bader, M.D., Richards, C.A., Neckerman, K.M., Teitler, J.O., Using Google Street View to audit neighborhood environments. Am J Prev Med 40:1 (2011), 94–100.
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 93:9 (2003), 1552–1558.
Saito, Y., Oguma, Y., Inoue, S., Tanaka, A., Kobori, Y., Environmental and individual correlates of various types of physical activity among community-dwelling middle-aged and elderly Japanese. Int J Environ Res Public Health 10:5 (2013), 2028–2042.
Samarasekara, G., Fukahori, K., Kubota, Y., Walkability evaluation of streetscapes: development of prediction equations for walking needs of tourists. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2013, University of Ruhuna, 110–117.
San Francisco Department of Public Health, The Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI): An assessment of the physical condition of streets and intersections. 2008, Program on Health, Equity, and Sustainability Urban Health and Place Team Department of Public Health, San Francisco.
Sarkar, S., Qualitative evaluation of comfort needs in urban walkways in major activity centers. Transportation quarterly 57:4 (2003), 39–59.
Southworth, M., Designing the walkable city. Journal of urban planning and development 131:4 (2005), 246–257.
Stark, S., Hollingsworth, H.H., Morgan, K.A., Gray, D.B., Development of a measure of receptivity of the physical environment. Disabil Rehabil 29:2 (2007), 123–137.
Suminski, R.R., Poston, W.S., Petosa, R.L., Stevens, E., Katzenmoyer, L.M., Features of the neighborhood environment and walking by U.S. adults. Am J Prev Med 28:2 (2005), 149–155.
Sung, H., Go, D., Choi, C.-g, Cheon, S., Park, S., Effects of street-level physical environment and zoning on walking activity in Seoul, Korea. Land Use Policy 49 (2015), 152–160.
Taboada, L.M., Non-residential pedestrian access to transit systems: a GIS modeling application. 2015, University of Tennessee.
The City of Calgary, Universal Design Handbook. The City of Calgary Community and Neighbourhood Service (CNS) Social Policy and Planning Division, Calgary, Canada, 2010.
Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., Aikoh, T., Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:4 (2004), 403–416.
Troped, P.J., Cromley, E.K., Path Environment Audit Tool (PEAT), 2005, Harvard School of Public Health, Massachusetts.
Troped, P.J., Cromley, E.K., Fragala, M.S., Melly, S.J., Hasbrouck, H.H., Gortmaker, S.L., Brownson, R.C., Development and reliability and validity testing of an audit tool for trail/path characteristics: the Path Environment Audit Tool (PEAT). Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 3, 2006, S158.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility. 2002, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, VA, 162.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Accessible Sidewalks and Street Crossings an informational guide. 2004, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C, 28.
UNC Highway Safety Research Center, Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility. 2000, Federal Highway Administration, NC.
University of North Carolina, H.S.R.C., PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. 2004, U.S. Department of Transportation, NC, 330.
Vaus, d, Survey in social research (Fifth edition), 2002, UCL Press and Allen & Unwin, London.
Venter, C., Savill, T., Rickert, T., Bogopane, H., Venkatesh, A., Camba, J., Mulikita, N., Khaula, C., Stone, J., Maunder, D., Enhanced accessibility for people with disabilities living in urban areas. 2002, Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR.
Williams, J.E., Evans, M., Kirtland, K.A., Cavnar, M.M., Sharpe, P.A., Neet, M.J., Cook, A., Development and use of a tool for assessing sidewalk maintenance as an environmental support of physical activity. Health promotion practice 6:1 (2005), 81–88.