Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability

Ewing, Reid; Handy, Susan

doi:10.1080/13574800802451155

Cited by 905 publications

(689 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

631

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A mix of individual and societal factors, such as gender, social class, personal values, place attachment, local culture, social norms, past experiences, physical capacity, and individual personal characteristics may influence the understanding of these cognitive representations, and perceptions of the environment may not correspond to objective reality. Therefore, different people might form different mental maps of the same built environment and consequently behave differently (Ewing and Handy 2009). Studies have found that there are significant discrepancies between researcher-and resident-defined neighborhood boundaries (Coulton et al 2013;Coulton et al 2001).…”

Section: Conclusion and Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do people’s perceptions of neighborhood bikeability match “Reality”?

Dill

2016

JTLU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do people perceive the built environment the same as we objectively measure it? If not, what are the relative roles of the objective versus the perceived environment on bicycling behavior? This study, based on data from Portland, Oregon, explored the match or mismatch between the objective and perceived bicycling environment and how it affects people's bicycling behavior. The descriptive analysis indicated a fair agreement between perceived and objective measures. Older adults, women having children, less-educated and lower-income persons, and those who bicycle less tended to perceive their high-bikeable environment (measured objectively) as being a low-bikeable environment. In addition to the socio-demographics, this study also found that the social environment can play a role in the relationship between the objective and perceived environment. Finally, results of this study indicated that both the actual and perceived built environment are associated with bicycling behavior, particularly for utilitarian bicycling. For recreational bicycling, the objective environment attributes measured in this study are not significant factors, while perceptions do matter.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do people’s perceptions of neighborhood bikeability match “Reality”?

Dill

2016

JTLU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ewing and Handy qualified walkability based on the ratings from a panel of urban design experts and then concluded five perceptual elements that determined walkability as imageability, visual enclosure, human scale, transparency, and complexity [23]. This approach was further developed to operationalise eight subjective perceptual qualities as imageability, enclosure, human scale, transparency, complexity, legibility, linkage and coherence in the context of commercial streets [24].…”

Section: Walkability Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict in Pedestrian Networks

Wang

Wood

Worboys

2016

Geospatial Data in a Changing World

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Encouraging pedestrian activity is increasingly recognised as beneficial for public health, the environment and the economy. As our cities become more crowded, there is a need for urban planners to take into account more explicitly pedestrian needs. The term that is now in use is that a city should be 'walkable'. For route planning, whereas much attention has been given to shortest path, in distance or time, much less attention has been paid to flow levels and the difficulties they pose on the route. This paper considers problems posed by conflicting paths, for example cross-traffic. We use network centrality measures to make a first estimate of differing levels of conflict posed at the network nodes. We take special note of the role of collective motion in determining network usage. A small case study illustrates the method.

show abstract

“…Most livability research tends to assess it in quantitative, abstract terms (Ewing & Handy, 2009). In order to measure impacts of transportation choices on livability, the Oregon Department of Transportation has used indicators including property values, noise levels, air pollution, number of injuries and fatalities, transportation options, travel time, transit accessibility and vehiclemiles traveled (Seskin and VanZerr, 2011).…”

Section: Perceptions Of Livabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

From Transit Stop to Urbanity Node: Field Audit for Measuring Livability at the Transit Stop

Ruggeri¹

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sponsoring Agency Code Supplementary Notes AbstractThis research proposal addresses issues of livability at the transit stop. American transit systems have historically been "shoehorned" into existing street networks designed predominantly for cars and trucks. While much research exists on livability and walkability in the context of urban and suburban streets and blocks, bus stops are greatly understudied. This research focused on bus stops and aimed at analyzing their performance in terms of livability, with particular emphasis on perceptions. Our definition of livability was expanded to include considerations of safety and maintenance, cleanliness, imageability and vitality, which have been shown to affect people's perceptions of livability and their choice to use public transportation.The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area and its transit system was the object of our investigation. Using Geographic Information System and Space Syntax software, we identified 17 bus stops having the most potential in terms of livability, which includes considerations of connectivity to other modes of transportation, mix of land uses surrounding the transit stop, and other traditional environmental qualities usually associated with sustainable places. The transit nodes were analyzed using an audit, a systematic test similar to those used by policymakers and communities to assess neighborhood walkability, which was expanded to include both quantitative and qualitative measures of livability.The effectiveness and wording of each type of question was carefully tested and refined, thanks to two separate pilot tests. The data collected through the audit was later standardized and merged into an index, a value representing the overall livability of the 17 bus stops audited. Despite minor differences across raters, the methodology proved effective in measuring and comparing livability across a variety of sites, and in illustrating their performance with regard to the environmental qualities tested.17.

show abstract

Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability

Cited by 905 publications

References 15 publications

Do people’s perceptions of neighborhood bikeability match “Reality”?

Do people’s perceptions of neighborhood bikeability match “Reality”?

Conflict in Pedestrian Networks

From Transit Stop to Urbanity Node: Field Audit for Measuring Livability at the Transit Stop

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About