Walking toward Metro Stations: the Contribution of Distance, Attitudes, and Perceived Built Environment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Walking as an Active Mode of Travel and Its Contributing Environmental Factors
2.2. Utilitarian Walking (Walking for Transport) in Physical Activity and Public Health Studies
2.3. Walking to/from Metro Stations and Its Related Built Environment Factors
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sallis, J.F.; Cervero, R.; Ascher, W.; Henderson, K.A.; Kraft, M.K.; Kerr, J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2006, 27, 297–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bagley, M.N.; Mokhtarian, P.L.; Kitamura, R. A methodology for the disaggregate, multi-dimensional measurement of neighborhood type. Urban Stud. 2002, 39, 689–704. [Google Scholar]
- Cervero, R.; Duncan, M. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1478–1483. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Cervero, R.; Radisch, C. Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods. Transp. Policy 1996, 3, 127–141. [Google Scholar]
- Duncan, M.J.; Winkler, E.; Sugiyama, T.; Cerin, E.; duToit, L.; Leslie, E.; Owen, N. Relationships of land use mix with walking for transport: Do land uses and geographical scale matter? J. Urban Health 2010, 87, 782–795. [Google Scholar]
- Greenwald, M.J.; Boarnet, M.G. Built environment as determinant of walking behavior: Analyzing nonwork pedestrian travel in Portland, Oregon. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2001, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kitamura, R.; Mokhtarian, P.L.; Laidet, L. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 1997, 24, 125–158. [Google Scholar]
- Kockelman, K.M. Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. Transp. Res. Rec. 1997, 1607, 116–125. [Google Scholar]
- Ewing, R.; Handy, S. Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. J. Urban Des. 2009, 14, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handy, S. Critical Assessment of the Literature on the Relationships among Transportation, Land Use, and Physical Activity. In Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence; National Academies: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Southworth, M. Designing the walkable city. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2005, 131, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, E.T.H.; Schwanen, T.; Banister, D. The role of perceived environment, neighbourhood characteristics, and attitudes in walking behaviour: Evidence from a rapidly developing city in China. Transportation 2019. [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; van Holle, V.; Simons, D.; Deridder, R.; Clarys, P.; Goubert, L.; Nasar, J.; Salmon, J.; Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Deforche, B. Environmental factors influencing older adults’ walking for transportation: A study using walk-along interviews. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jack, E.; McCormack, G.R. The associations between objectively-determined and self-reported urban form characteristics and neighborhood-based walking in adults. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 71. Available online: http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/11/1/71 (accessed on 19 November 2020). [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kerr, J.; Emond, J.A.; Badland, H.; Reis, R.; Sarmiento, O.; Carlson, J.; Natarajan, L. Perceived neighborhood environmental attributes associated with walking and cycling for transport among adult residents of 17 cities in 12 countries: The IPEN study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pelclová, J.; Frömel, K.; Bláha, L.; Zając-Gawlak, I.; Tlučáková, L. Neighborhood environment and walking for transport and recreation in central European older adults. Acta Gymnica 2012, 42, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
- Saelens, B.; Handy, S. Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, S550–S566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bahrainy, H.; Khosravi, H.; Aliakbari, F.; Khosravi, F. The Impact of built environment on walkability, case study: North-West of Shiraz. Arman. Arch. Urban Dev. 2015, 8, 105–117. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Diez-Roux, A.V. Adults’ daily walking for travel and leisure: Interaction between attitude toward walking and the neighborhood environment. Am. J. Health Promot. 2017, 31, 435–443. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, A.D.L. The Relationship between Neighborhood Environment and Walking Behavior: The Influence of Perceptions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Agrawal, A.W.; Schlossberg, M.; Irvin, K. How far, by which route and why? A spatial analysis of pedestrian preference. J. Urban Des. 2008, 13, 81–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.; Sohn, D.W.; Choo, S. An analysis of the relationship between pedestrian traffic volumes and built environment around metro stations in Seoul. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 1443–1452. [Google Scholar]
- Paydar, M.; Kamani Fard, A. Perceived legibility in relation to path choice of commuters in central business district. Urban Des. Int. 2016, 21, 213–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, G.; Zacharias, J.; Ma, B.; Oreskovic, N. How do metro stations integrate with walking environments? Results from walking access within three types of built environment in Beijing. Cities 2016, 56, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oakes, J.M.; Forsyth, A.; Schmitz, K.H. The effects of neighborhood density and street connectivity on walking behavior: The Twin Cities walking study. Epidemiol. Perspect. Innov. 2007, 4, 16. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sarker, R.; Mailer, M.; Sikder, S. Walking to a public transport station: Empirical evidence on willingness and acceptance in Munich, Germany. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2019, 9, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frank, L.D.; Schmid, T.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Chapman, J.; Saelens, B.E. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 117–125. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, L.D.; Pivo, G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transp. Res. Rec. 1995, 1466, 44–52. [Google Scholar]
- Krizek, K. Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: Does neighborhood—Scale urban form matter? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2003, 69, 265–281. [Google Scholar]
- Kamruzzaman, M.D.; Washington, S.; Baker, D.; Brown, W.; Giles-Corti, B.; Turrell, G. Built environment impacts on walking for transport in Brisbane, Australia. Transportation 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pikora, T.; Giles-Corti, B.; Bull, F.; Jamrozik, K.; Donovan, R. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003, 56, 1693–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saelens, B.; Sallis, J.; Frank, L. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann. Behav. Med. 2003, 25, 80–91. [Google Scholar]
- McCormack, E.; Rutherford, S.G.; Wilkinson, M. Travel impacts of mixed land use neighborhoods in Seattle, Washington. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2001, 1780, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
- Handy, S.L.; Clifton, K.J.; Fisher, J. The Effectiveness of Land Use Policies as a Strategy for Reducing Automobile Dependence: A Study of Austin Neighborhoods; Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Cervero, R. Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American housing survey. Transp. Res. A 1996, 30, 361–377. [Google Scholar]
- Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R.; Paydar, M.; Hamidi, S.H. University-related travel behavior: Young adult’s decision-making in Iran. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 43, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Donovan, R.J. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Prev. Med. 2002, 3, 601–611. [Google Scholar]
- Inoue, S.; Ohya, Y.; Odagiri, Y.; Takamiya, T.; Kamada, M.; Okada, S.; Oka, K.; Kitabatake, Y.; Nakaya, T.; Sallis, J.; et al. Perceived neighborhood environment and walking for specific purposes among elderly Japanese. J. Epidemiol. Jpn. Epidemiol. Assoc. 2011, 21, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Suminski, R.R.; Poston, W.S.C.; Petosa, R.L.; Stevens, E.; Katzenmoyer, L.M. Features of the neighborhood environment and walking by U.S. adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 149–155. [Google Scholar]
- Yun, H.Y. Environmental factors associated with older adult’s walking behaviors: A systematic review of quantitative studies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zapata-Diomedi, B.; Veerman, J.L. The association between built environment features and physical activity in the Australian context: A synthesis of the literature. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paydar, M.; Ramezani, S. The effects of sense of progression and cognitive distance on path choice and walking behavior while aiming to reach destination. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2010, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paydar, M.; Kamani-Fard, A. El temor a la delincuencia y la percepción de inseguridad en el entorno urbano. Argos 2015, 32, 179–195. Available online: http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0254-16372015000200011&lng=es&nrm=iso (accessed on 14 November 2020).
- Paydar, M.; Kamani, F.A.; Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R. Perceived security of women in relation to their path choice toward sustainable neighborhood in Santiago, Chile. Cities 2017, 60, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craig, C.L.; Brownson, R.C.; Cragg, S.E.; Dunn, A.L. Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: A study examining walking to work. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 23, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Saelens, B.; Sallis, J.F.; Black, J.; Chen, D. Preliminary evaluation of neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environmental scale evaluation. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1152–1158. [Google Scholar]
- Blečić, I.; Congiu, T.; Fancello, G.; Trunfio, G.A. Planning and design support tools for walkability: A guide for urban analysts. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4405. [Google Scholar]
- Paydar, M.; Kamani, F.A.; Khaghani, M. Pedestrian walkways for health in Shiraz, Iran, the contribution of attitudes, and perceived environmental attributes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H. Walking distance, route choice, and activities while walking: A record of following pedestrians from transit stations in the San Francisco Bay area. Urban Des. Int. 2015, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millward, H.; Spinney, J.; Scott, D. Active-transport walking behavior: Destinations, durations, distances. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 28, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerin, E.; Conway, T.L.; Saelens, B.E.; Frank, L.D.; Sallis, J.F. Cross-validation of the factorial structure of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) and its abbreviated form (NEWS-A). Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2009, 6, 32. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Joh, K.; Nguyen, M.T.; Boarnet, M.G. Can built and social environmental factors encourage walking among individuals with negative walking attitudes? J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2012, 32, 219–236. [Google Scholar]
- Handy, S.; Cao, X.; Mokhtarian, P. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2005, 10, 427–444. [Google Scholar]
- Rind, E.; Shortt, N.; Mitchell, R.; Richardson, E.A.; Pearce, J. Are income-related differences in active travel associated with physical environmental characteristics? A multi-level ecological approach. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Owen, N.; Cerin, E.; Leslie, E.; Du Toit, L.; Coffee, N.; Frank, L.; Bauman, A.; Hugo, G.; Saelens, B.; Sallis, J. Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2007, 33, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cerin, E.; Lesie, E.; Owen, N. Explaining socio-economic status differences in walking for transport: An ecological analysis of individual, social and environmental factors. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 68, 1013–1020. [Google Scholar]
- Mouada, N.; Zemmouri, N.; Meziani, R. Urban morphology, outdoor thermal comfort and walkability in hot, dry cities: Case study in Sidi Okba, Algeria. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 7, 117–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanky, A.; Verma, S.; Courtney, T.; Santi, P.; Ratti, C. Effect of weather on pedestrian trip count and duration: City-scale evaluations using mobile phone application data. Prev. Med. Rep. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasilikou, C.; Nikolopoulou, M. Outdoor thermal comfort for pedestrians in movement: Thermal walks in complex urban morphology. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2020, 64, 277–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ball, K.; Bauman, A.; Leslie, E.; Owen, N. Perceived environmental aesthetics and convenience, and company are associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults. Prev. Med. 2001, 33, 434–440. [Google Scholar]
- Nehme, E.; Oluyomi, A.; Calise, T.; Kohl, H. Environmental correlates of recreational walking in the neighborhood. Am. J. Health Promot. 2016, 30, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynch, G.; Atkins, S. The influence of personal security fears on women’s travel patterns. Transportation 1988, 15, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taghvayi, M.; Zarrabi, A.; Ahmadi, H.; Beykmohammadi, H.; Moghani, B. Spatial distribution of crime in eight areas of Shiraz. J. Geogr. Reg. Dev. 2012, 10, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceccato, V.; Oberwittler, D. Comparing spatial patterns of robbery: Evidence from a Western and an Eastern European city. Cities 2008, 25, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, O. Creating Defensible Space; Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research: Washington, DC, USA, 1996. Available online: https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/def.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2020).
- Hillier, B. Space Is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Little, J.; Panelli, R.; Kraack, A. Women’s fear of crime: A rural perspective. J. Rural. Stud. 2005, 21, 151–163. [Google Scholar]
- Pain, R.; MacFarlane, R.; Turner, K.; Gill, S. When, where, if, and but: Qualifying GIS and the effect of street lighting on crime and fear. Environ. Plan. A 2005, 38, 2055–2074. [Google Scholar]
- Waters, J. Perceptions of Personal Safety on University Campuses. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glamorgan, Glamorgan, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Criterion | Sub-Criterion | The Metro Stations | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Urban Texture related to land use and Built environment | Land use diversity | Type | T1 | T1 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T1 | T1 | T3 | T1 | T1 | T3 | T3 | T2 | T1 | T3 | T2 | T1 | T2 | T2 | T1 | T1 |
Intersection density | Type | T1 | T1 | T1 | T3 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T1 | T1 | T1 | T2 | T2 | T1 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T1 | T3 | T1 | T1 | T1 | |
Block Density | Type | T1 | T1 | T1 | T3 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T1 | T1 | T1 | T2 | T2 | T1 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T1 | T3 | T1 | T1 | T1 | |
2. Number of pedestrians | Type | T1 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T1 | T2 | T2 | T1 | T3 | T2 | T1 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T2 | T1 | T2 | T2 | T2 | T3 | T2 | |
Final metro stations | Metro station 1 (Ehsan), Metro station 5 (Ghasrodasht) and Metro station 11 (Zandiyeh) |
Metro Station | Total Number of Passengers Who Entered during One Week | The Selected Numbers of Respondents |
---|---|---|
Ehsan metro station | 27,194 | 99 |
Ghasrodasht metro station | 21,018 | 89 |
Zandiyeh metro station | 56,883 | 207 |
All the selected metro station | 105,095 | 395 |
Description of Variable | Frequency | Percentage | Mean | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (years old) | 1 = 16 to 18 | 24 | 6.1 | 2.34 |
2 = 19–29 | 258 | 65.3 | ||
3 = 30–39 | 68 | 17.2 | ||
4 = 40–49 | 40 | 10.1 | ||
5 = 50–59 | 3 | 0.8 | ||
6 = 60–69 | 1 | 0.3 | ||
7 = More than 70 | 1 | 0.3 | ||
Gender | 1 = Male | 247 | 62.5 | 1.37 |
2 = Female | 148 | 37.5 | ||
Monthly income (Rial, currency of Iran) | 1 = Less than ten million | 229 | 58 | 1.71 |
2 = Ten–twenty | 61 | 15.4 | ||
3 = Twenty–thirty | 62 | 15.7 | ||
4 = Thirty–forty | 25 | 6.3 | ||
5 = More than forty million | 18 | 4.6 | ||
Owning private car | 1 = Yes | 104 | 26.3 | 1.74 |
2 = No | 290 | 73.4 | ||
Education | 1 = High school | 11 | 2.8 | 3.21 |
2 = Diploma | 82 | 20.8 | ||
3 = Bachelor | 163 | 41.3 | ||
4 = Master | 90 | 22.8 | ||
5 = Ph.D. | 49 | 12.4 | ||
Type of starting point | 1 = Housing | 65 | 16.5 | |
2 = Commercial | 27 | 6.8 | ||
3 = Office | 33 | 8.4 | ||
4 = Recreational | 74 | 18.7 | ||
5 = Educational | 146 | 37 | ||
6 = Others | 50 | 12.7 | ||
Type of destination after leaving the metro station | 1 = Housing | 62 | 15.6 | |
2 = Commercial | 62 | 15.6 | ||
3 = Office | 29 | 7.3 | ||
4 = Recreational | 51 | 12.9 | ||
5 = Educational | 117 | 29.6 | ||
6 = Cultural | 22 | 5.5 | ||
7 = Religious | 23 | 5.8 | ||
8 = Sport | 21 | 5.3 | ||
9 = Industrial | 8 | 2 | ||
You usually walk along this route with others | 1 = Strongly disagree | 46 | 11.6 | 3.69 |
2 = Disagree | 32 | 8.1 | ||
3 = Neither agree nor disagree | 54 | 13.7 | ||
4 = Agree | 128 | 32.4 | ||
5 = Strongly agree | 135 | 34.2 | ||
Walking attitudes:
| 1 = Strongly disagree | 3.92 | ||
2 = Disagree | ||||
3 = Neither agree nor disagree | ||||
4 = Agree | ||||
5 = Strongly agree |
Loadings | Environmental Attributes | Components |
---|---|---|
Aesthetic, comfort and convenience aspects | There are many attractive natural sights (such as landscaping, views). | 0.782 |
There are attractive buildings/homes around the sidewalks. | 0.749 | |
The variety of views and buildings along the sidewalks make the walking enjoyable. | 0.655 | |
It is possible to see and perceive human activities inside the buildings beyond the edge of the streets. | 0.626 | |
Trees and buildings give shade for the sidewalks, which make the walking more comfortable especially during hot season. | 0.622 | |
There are many alternative routes for getting from my starting point to the metro station (I don’t have to go the same way every time.). | 0.599 | |
Parks and other similar recreational spaces are easily accessible in my walking trip. | 0.486 | |
The path is generally free from litter. | 0.432 | |
Traffic safety | Traffic calming devices to control the speed of cars such as speed humps exist at crossing locations. | 0.765 |
Drivers generally give priority to pedestrians to cross the streets. | 0.762 | |
Crosswalks exist at most of the junctions, which increase the safety of pedestrians. | 0.741 | |
Most drivers do not exceed the indicated speed limits while driving. | 0.560 | |
Motorcyclists rarely use the sidewalks, which increases the safety of the pedestrians. | 0.502 | |
Functional aspects and facilities along the path (physical comfort) | There are enough seating areas and benches along the walkways. | 0.740 |
There are enough trash bins along the sidewalks. | 0.703 | |
The sidewalks are well maintained (paved, even, and not a lot of cracks). | 0.588 | |
There is a grass/dirt strip that separates the streets from the sidewalks. | 0.581 | |
Accessibility to shops and public transport (convenient environment) | Newsstand kiosks are available for partial purchases along this sidewalk. | 0.726 |
Stores are easily accessible during my walking trips. | 0.714 | |
Public transit stops such as train or buses are easily accessible during my walking trip. | 0.559 | |
There are many four-way intersections along my walking trip. | 0.361 | |
Personal security | I see and speak to other people when I am walking. | 0.794 |
Walkers can be easily seen by people in their homes. | 0.673 | |
I feel secure from crime while walking during the day. | 0.514 | |
This sidewalk is well lit at night. | 0.468 | |
Continuity of walking movement together with sense of comfort | Less uneven surfaces on this sidewalk make it easier to walk. | 0.800 |
Fewer physical barriers made for instance by cars and motorcycles along my traced sidewalks made the walking easier for me. | 0.798 | |
The width of the sidewalks | The width of the sidewalks is generally suitable for walking. | 0.656 |
Legibility along the path | The signs indicating the metro station are legible which makes it easy to reach. | 0.798 |
The metro station is visible during walking. | 0.771 | |
Enclosure along the street | The ratio of the height of the buildings to the width of the street is attractive. | 0.822 |
Variables | Standard Coefficient | t | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Sociodemographic variables | |||
Gender (1. male 2. female) | 0.041 | 0.931 | 0.35 |
Age (1–5 from young to elderly) | 0.050 | 1.077 | 0.28 |
Monthly income (1–4 from low to high) | −0.143 | −3.169 | 0.002 ** |
Education (1–4 from low before-diploma to high (doctor) | −0.062 | −1.368 | 0.17 |
Owning private car (1. Yes; 2: No) | 0.190 | 4.208 | 0.000 ** |
Walking with others | |||
Do you usually walk with friends or family? | 0.024 | 0.520 | 0.60 |
Types of origin land use as compared to housing type | |||
Commercial (commercial:1; housing: 0) | −0.052 | −1.020 | 0.30 |
Office (Office:1; housing: 0) | −0.030 | −0.575 | 0.56 |
Recreational (Recreational:1; housing: 0) | −0.041 | −0.720 | 0.47 |
Educational (Educational:1; housing: 0) | −0.122 | −1.938 | 0.05 * |
Health (health: 1; housing: 0) | −0.060 | −1.097 | 0.27 |
Attitudes toward walking | 0.289 | 6.153 | 0.000 ** |
Distance between starting points and metro stations (The meters walked) | −0.185 | −4.111 | 0.000 ** |
Perceived built environment components | |||
Aesthetic, comfort and convenience aspects | 0.111 | 1.882 | 0.05 * |
Traffic safety | 0.120 | 2.543 | 0.01 ** |
Functional aspects and facilities along the path (physical comfort) | 0.006 | 0.122 | 0.90 |
Accessibility to shops and public transport (convenient environment) | 0.037 | −0.671 | 0.50 |
Personal security | 0.101 | 1.928 | 0.05 * |
Continuity of walking movement together with sense of comfort | 0.027 | 0.560 | 0.57 |
Legibility along the path | 0.004 | 0.093 | 0.92 |
The width of the sidewalks | 0.067 | 1.411 | 0.15 |
Enclosure along the street | 0.065 | 1.431 | 0.15 |
Distance to Metro Stations (m) | 0–100 | 101–200 | 201–300 | 301–400 | 401–500 | 501–600 | 601–700 | 701–800 | 801–900 | 901–1000 | 1001–1100 | 1101–1200 | 1201–1300 | 1301–1400 | 1401–1500 | 1501–1600 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | 48 | 64 | 47 | 80 | 45 | 42 | 35 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 2 |
Percent % | 12.1 | 16.2 | 11.8 | 20.2 | 11.3 | 10.6 | 8.8 | 1.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 1 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Mean | 336 (m) | |||||||||||||||
Minimum | 14 (m) | |||||||||||||||
Maximum | 1598 (m) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Paydar, M.; Fard, A.K.; Khaghani, M.M. Walking toward Metro Stations: the Contribution of Distance, Attitudes, and Perceived Built Environment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410291
Paydar M, Fard AK, Khaghani MM. Walking toward Metro Stations: the Contribution of Distance, Attitudes, and Perceived Built Environment. Sustainability. 2020; 12(24):10291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410291
Chicago/Turabian StylePaydar, Mohammad, Asal Kamani Fard, and Mohammad Mehdi Khaghani. 2020. "Walking toward Metro Stations: the Contribution of Distance, Attitudes, and Perceived Built Environment" Sustainability 12, no. 24: 10291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410291
APA StylePaydar, M., Fard, A. K., & Khaghani, M. M. (2020). Walking toward Metro Stations: the Contribution of Distance, Attitudes, and Perceived Built Environment. Sustainability, 12(24), 10291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410291