Journals / Kocaeli Journal of Science and Engineering / 2022 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

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

Pages
212–226
Publication Date
2022-11-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Walking is a critical mode to be encouraged in sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs).
📊
Key Findings & Data:While the former was investigated via traditional questions, the latter was sought after via map-based 1844 routes from 623 participating students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Pedestrian · Campus · Survey

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUYDES-YAMAN, H., SEVİNEN, P. K., ONCU, Z. P., DALKİC, G. (2022). Towards a New Walking Evaluation Approach: Power of Surveys and Route-based Evaluations in GIS Environment. Kocaeli Journal of Science and Engineering, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 212–226. https://ajindex.com/articles/860994

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  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 Te