Next Article in Journal
Usefulness of Technological Capacity Evaluation for Brazilian Farmer Stakeholders: A Bibliometric Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Farmers’ Indigenous Knowledge of Soil Quality and Fertility Management Practices in Selected Farming Communities of the Guinea Savannah Agro-Ecological Zone of Ghana
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Path Walkability Assessment Index Model for Evaluating and Facilitating Retail Walking Using Decision-Tree-Making (DTM) Method

1
Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial, Calle Rumipamba s/n y Bourgeois, Quito 170508, Ecuador
2
MIT-UTM MSCP Program, Institute Sultan Iskandar, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Malaysia
3
Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia
4
Jacobs School of Engineering, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA
5
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha 2713, Qatar
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(4), 1035; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041035
Submission received: 2 March 2018 / Revised: 26 March 2018 / Accepted: 28 March 2018 / Published: 31 March 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Transportation)

Abstract

:
Transportation is the major contributor of ever-increasing CO2 and Greenhouse Gas emissions in cities. The ever-increasing hazardous emissions of transportation and energy consumption have persuaded transportation and urban planners to motivate people to non-motorized mode of travel, especially walking. Currently, there are several urban walkability assessment models; however, coping with a limited range of walkability assessment variables make these models not fully able to promote inclusive walkable urban neighborhoods. In this regard, this study develops the path walkability assessment (PWA) index model which evaluates and analyzes path walkability in association with the pedestrian’s decision-tree-making (DTM). The model converts the pedestrian’s DTM qualitative data to quantifiable values. This model involves ninety-two (92) physical and environmental walkability assessment variables clustered into three layers of DTM (Layer 1: features; Layer 2: Criteria; and Layer 3: Sub-Criteria), and scoped to shopping and retail type of walking. The PWA model as a global decision support tool can be applied in any neighborhood in the world, and this study implements it at Taman Universiti neighborhood in Skudai, Malaysia. The PWA model has established the walkability score index which determines the grading rate of walkability accomplishment for each walkability variable of the under-survey neighborhood. Using the PWA grading index enables urban designers to manage properly the financial resource allocation for inspiring walkability in the targeted neighborhood.

1. Introduction

Transportation is the major contributor of ever-increasing CO2 and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in all major cities in the world. Growing concern on transportation emissions and energy security has led to many mitigation policies, standards, and techniques [1]. However, urban and transportation professionals are rethinking how to reduce the travel rate and demand as much as possible; for instance, promoting non-motorized modes of travel. They are attempting to encourage people to change their travel behavior to a less energy-intensive mode of travel (i.e., walking). The walking mode supports simultaneously personal and public interests; it promotes the public health (physically and mentally) and contributes to less fuel consumption, less CO2 and GHG emissions, and fewer road fatalities and accidents. Indeed, walkable and pedestrian-oriented urban design uses less land per traveler than driving, less energy resource consumption, less pollution and reduces driver frustration (www.walkinginfo.org).
Rapid urban growth has persuaded transportation professionals and practitioners towards urban walkability which focuses on pedestrian behavior and environment facility management [2,3]. The terminology “walkability” has raised concerns in urban design, urban and transportation planning, and public health since the early 2000s. The National Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (CDC) states “walkability is the idea of quantifying the safety and desirability of the walking routes” [4]. Clifton and Livi [5] expressed that walkability “… can be considered in parallel with friendliness, because of variables included functional, safety, aesthetic and destination as well as security, comfort and convenience, continuity, system coherence, and attractiveness”. Walkability is also recommended as being “…a useful way to assess the characteristics of an area or a route, although it can be subjective” [6]. Frank et al. [7] defined walkability as “… the extent to which the built environment is walking friendly, which enables the opportunity for a subjective or qualitative assessment against specific criteria”. The Gindroz and Levine [8] suggested that the fundamental elements of New Urbanism and Smart Growth, as defined by the CNU, are the basis for walkable neighborhood development. New Urbanism and Smart Growth are advocating an energy-efficient and pedestrian-oriented design which motivates people to walk more and drive less. New Urbanism and Smart Growth constitute principles (including sustainability, connectivity, mixed-land uses and diversity, quality architecture, quality of life, quality urban design, smart transportation, amd urban compactness and density) that are being increasingly applied at different scales; from micro-scale (i.e., single path) to macro-scale (i.e., entire urban area). On the other hand, physical living activity studies have focused mostly on walking and cycling activities [9]. Accordingly, urban walkability studies have considered various walking typologies based on the destinations and temporal scheduling of trips (see Figure 1). Walking typologies include: walking for shopping and retail walking (which is a non-scheduled activity), walking to work, walking to school, and walking to religious place (which are scheduled activities). Regular walking as a form of recreation and exercise to improve individual’s health also promotes walkability [10,11].
Furthermore, Rimer [12], Titze et al. [13], and Shafray and Kim [14] investigated walkability based on non-modifiable factors (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, car ownership, education, etc.) and modifiable factors (e.g., beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and social and physical determinants). The modifiable factors are divided into individual, social, and neighborhood levels. The individual level, is the most basic level where the self-motivation is a momentum for walking; the social level is influenced by the social groups which an individual belongs to; and local neighborhood level is influenced by the physical facilities for individual and social group walking activities.

2. Problem Statement

The investigation on previous studies in different disciplines (including urban planning, transportation planning, urban design, urban management, and landscape architecture) shows the inconsistencies in built environment perceptual qualities and qualitative variables measurements. Most of the statically-driven studies could not properly interpret the built environment perceptual qualities into measurable variables. The research conducted by Ewing et al. [16] improved the previous research by indicating a critical relationship between perceptual qualities and personal reactions in the walking behavior study, while path walkability in the scale of local neighborhood has not yet been investigated from the perspective of pedestrian’s decision making on route selection. Policy-makers, urban planners and designers need a decision support tool for measuring neighborhood’s walkability with the aid of residents’ perceptual cognition on the physical and environmental qualities of the paths and routes. Although empirical investigation in the background of this study found a theoretical framework of positive association between walkability and pedestrian’s decision making, no global solution for this problem could be found.
To date, several urban walkability assessment models have been developed which deal with pedestrian’s walking behavior for travel and recreation purposes. These models have applied diverse methods to collect and analyze the data, such as Audit Tool, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Recall Questionnaire, Sensor Motion, and Self-Report Tool. Mostly, the auditing method was applied in the urban walkability assessment model development. The most well-known urban walkability auditing tools are:; PEDSAFE [17], Pedestrian Location Identifuhuhier [18], Walkability Survey Tool [19], Neighborhood Audit Instrument (PIN3) [20], Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool [5], Pedestrian Intersections Safety Index (Ped ISI) [21], Measurement Instrument for Urban Design Quantities Related to Walkability [16], Active Neighborhood Checklist [22], Senior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool (SWEAT) [20], Walkability Audit Tool [23], and Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale [24]. Most of the auditing-based walkability assessment models objectively measure the association between built environmental walkability and individuals’ perception and preference on route selection, but cannot measure this correlation subjectively. In addition, the individual’s multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach has not been integrated into walkability assessment. The review of literature highlights only three assessment models integrating MCDM in walkability assessment: (1) PIP Decision System (developed by Moudon et al. [25]); (2) Pedestrian Performance Measure System (developed by Dixon et al. [26]); and (3) PEDSAFE [17]. However, these models measure walkability in urban planning scale not in urban design scale. Besides, no model adopts the decision-tree-making (DTM) method in pedestrian’s walking behavior analysis and pattern recognition. Moreover, most walkability assessment models are local-based which make inter-study comparisons very difficult and uncertain. To bridge these gaps, this research moved forward to develop a global and inclusive user walkability assessment model. This is based on the premise of improving street networks’ connectivity and accessibility that can generate safer, securer, more pedestrian-friendly street systems by shortening walking distances, providing more route choices, and reducing the need for crossing the streets. The model, called the “Path Walkability Assessment (PWA) Index Model”, can forecast the pedestrian’s DTM in determining the well-designed walking routes. This model is a decision support tool that aids urban designers for walkable neighborhood design and development. Using the outputs of this tool helps urban designers to adapt the local neighborhood environment characteristics with residents’ needs, preferences, and perceptions.
Previous studies have commonly evaluated the pedestrian’s walking behavior towards transit station, school, and working offices, which are scheduled activities (e.g., Frank and Pivo [27], Cervero (1996), Boarnet and Crane [28]). The current research focuses on shopping walking, a non-scheduled activity, hence shopping centers are the targeted destinations in the walkability assessment. To capture more accurately the pedestrian’s DTM in shopping walking, the model plays with more than one shopping center as the target destination. Based on urban development polices, the maximum number of mega-scale shopping centers in a neighborhood is three; thus, the research considered three uni-functional shopping centers, which are considered the three case study areas in this study (see Figure 2). The research claims that conducting the model validation pilot study in three case study areas contributes to interpret and generalize the result properly.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Path Walkability Assessment Variables

The Path Walkability Assessment (PWA) index model has been developed based on two significant philosophies of walkability evaluation: “well-designed” urban walkability, and “most-in-use” path walkability. The current study presents the “well-designed” model, and the other concept will be presented in future works. The “well-designed” path walkability assessment index model evaluates whether the neighborhood has incorporated the walkability design codes and standards that well facilitate and fulfill pedestrian’s preferences and needs. Figure 3 illustrates schematically how the “well-designed” path walkability assessment index model deals with three-layered walkability variables, and analyzes them based on pedestrian’s DTM in walking route selection.
The PWA model involves ninety-two walkability variables (clustered into five walkability features, where each feature includes several walkability criteria and sub-criteria (see Appendix A)). The following summarizes the path walkability assessment features, criteria and sub-criteria that are involved in development of the PWA index model.
(a) Path Walkability Assessment Features:
Babiano [29] developed the pedestrian needs hierarchy, which, from bottom to top, includes mobility, protection, ease, enjoyment and identity (see Figure 4). Babiano [29] assumed that those lower in hierarchy must at least be partially “satisfied before those higher in order may become an important source of motivation”. In fact, from bottom level to summit level, the initial physical needs of pedestrian are transformed to mental and spiritual needs. It can be referred to as the recent approach in urban design and planning, which incorporates urban form and pedestrian walking behavior, supported by Handy (2006): it is very important to consider attitude, perception, and self-selection behaviors of the pedestrian. Accordingly, the PWA model indicated the walkability assessment features (i.e., 1st Layer in DTM analysis) as: F1. Sense of Safety and Security; F2. Connectivity; F3. Comfort; F4. Convenience; and F5. Attractiveness and Aesthetic.
(b) Path Walkability Assessment Criteria and Sub-Criteria:
The walking trips are affected by form and characteristics of the neighborhood; however, a comprehensive list of neighborhood walkability criteria and the sub-criteria has not been yet established [5,30]. Kockelman [31] and Clifton et al. [5] expressed that it is essential to indicate the walkability criteria and sub-criteria for walking assessment modeling. In this regard, a comprehensive list of environmental and physical measures has been identified which have been either perceived or empirically tested in association with pedestrian’s decision making in shopping walking. The research has extracted the path walkability assessment criteria (i.e., 2nd Layer in DTM analysis) and sub-criteria (i.e., 3rd Layer in DTM analysis) by reviewing the existing pedestrian indices and walkability assessment models through the available literature [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61] (see Appendix A). The research has developed the PWA assessment model based on this list of walkability assessment variables as presented in the following sections.

3.2. Methods

The PWA index model analyzes the respondent’s DTM and priority needs for walking in an under-survey neighborhood area. The PWA model facilitates walking through the paths within the neighborhood by analyzing the path walkability variables (i.e., 92 walkability variables clustered into 3 layers of DTM analysis). the DTM method has been widely used in the area of sustainable urban development [62,63]. The DTM method is a helpful tool when it is possible to measure the probability of an event occurring and socio-economic beneficial of a particular decision made [64,65,66]. In terms of the complex decisions undertaken, the DTM provides qualitative data and quantifiable information in the urban design decision making process [67]. The application of the DTM method in an urban walkability study has great value in comparison to both conventional neighborhood urban form analysis and conventional path walkability analysis, especially in comparison to studies focused on mode-choice, trip chaining, and destination travel (e.g., trips to school, transit destination, or park). In the case of research with a combination of multiple trips and diverse destinations, the DTM analysis on individual’s walkable path selection towards his/her target destination can yield valuable output and findings.

3.2.1. Decision Tree Making (DTM)

The PWA model has developed the following equations for analyzing the pedestrian’s DTM. Equations (1)–(3) are used for evaluation of response for each variable based on his/her DTM. The include variables in 1st layer (Features ( F i )), 2nd Layer (Criteria ( C j )), and 3rd Layer (Sub-criteria ( S k )). They calculate the “Average Weight Value of each Variable” ( A v W V F i C j S k ).
( A v W V F i C j S k ) = r = 1   n R r R W V F i C j S k   ( Rate   Value   of   each   variable   by   respondant   nomber )   Total   Nomber   of   respondant   ( n ) × RV   Max
where “ R r R W V F i C j S k ” is the abbreviation of Rate Weight Value of each Variable by rth Respondent (Rr). It is calculated using Equations (2) and (3).
R r R W V F i C j S k   =   least   possible   Rate   Value   of   the   Variable   by   respondent     ( rate   of   the   variable   by   rth   Respondent     1 )
RWV Max = “least possible Rate Value of the Variable by Respondent”
where
F i is the feature number “i”, and “i” can be 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
C j is the criteria number “j”, and “j” can be 0, 1, 2 or 3.
S k is the sub-criteria number “k”, and “k” can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8.
After analysis of response for each variable using Equations (1)–(3), the Equation 4 was applied for each feature ( F i ), then Equation 5 for each criteria ( F i C j ) and Equation 6 for each sub-criteria ( F i C j S k ):
AcWVFi (Actual Weight Value of each variable in 1st Layer) = AcWVFi
AcWVFiCj− (Actual Weight Value of each variable in 2nd Layer) = AcWVFiCj− × AcWVFi− × 100
AcWVFiCjSk− (Actual Weight Value of each variable in 3rd Layer) = AcWVFiCjSk− × AcWVFiCj− × 100
Based on the second definition of walkable path, study identified below the mathematical model to measure “Path Walkability Assessment (PWA) Score Index” for each sub-criteria of 3rd layer ( F i C j S k ) corresponding to the most usable path. Equation 7 is only used in the 3rd Layer where zero “0” is acceptable for “j” and “k”.
PWA   Score   Index   ( F i C j S k ) = A c W V F i C j S k   i , j , k = 1   A c W V F i C j S k   × 100

3.2.2. Regression Analysis

The PWA index model used regression analysis to measure and analyze the path walkability into two scales, walkability index for each destination (meso-scale), and walkability index for the overall neighborhood area (macro-scale). To conduct regression analysis, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for both conceptual variables (i.e., overall neighborhood walkability) and the measured variables (i.e., shopping center walkability). In the current research, the regression coefficient was computed, which represents the effect of each measured walkability variables in the regression analysis and controls for the effect of other measured variables. The PWA model calculated the Regression Equation which conducts the actual prediction of the conceptual variable upon one or more measured variables. The regression Equation 8 is as follow:
Y ^ = Y ¯ + r   S Y S X   ( X X ¯ )
where
  • Y ^ (Y hat) refers to the predicted score of an individual on the dependent variable.
  • Y ¯ is the mean of independent variable, which is calculated as the sum of all of the scores divided by the sample size ( Y ¯ = Y 1 + Y 2 + Y 3 + + Y n N ).
  • X refers to the scores of dependent variables.
  • X ¯ is the mean of dependent variable, which is calculated as the sum of all of the scores divided by the sample size ( X ¯ = X 1   +   X 2 +   X 3   + +   X n N ).
  • S Y and S X , refer to the standard deviations of the X and Y, respectively ( S X = X 2     ( X 2 ) N N ).
  • r is the Pearson correlation coefficient.
The Pearson correlation coefficient is calculated based on Equation (9):
r   =   XY   ( X ) ( Y ) N [   X 2   ( x )   2 N ] [ Y 2   ( Y )   2 N ]
where
  • X and Y refer to the score of dependent and independent variables, respectively.
  • N   refers to the ample size.
In the regression analysis, the shopping center walkability is assumed as the independent variables, which is shown in the X axis, and the overall neighborhood walkability is the dependent variable, which is shown in the Y axis.

4. Analysis

Diverse urban neighborhoods can be evaluated through the PWA index model, since it has the potential to be applied in diverse urban contexts. This research has conducted a case study in the center of Taman Universiti neighborhood in city of Skudai, Malaysia. According to purposive sampling size method, 120 respondents (i.e., residents) have participated in the survey as representative of 2500 householders of the Taman Universiti neighborhood. The survey captured the residents’ DTM patterns in their shopping walking towards three shopping centers within the Taman Universiti neighborhood (see Figure 5). The Taman Universiti neighborhood has great potential to replicate the scenario of this research. In this neighborhood, various types of land uses (including residential, commercial, school, mosque, shopping center, and public facilities) provide the opportunities to various human physical activities; specifically, walking. The shopping centers were located within standard and pedestrian-oriented distances (400–900 m); however, the residents are not satisfied with the current conditions of sidewalk, walkways, and pedestrian facilities. The absence of some walkability criteria within this neighborhood (e.g., blocked sidewalk, non-continuous sidewalk, and stepping up and down along roadside shoulders) make it inconvenient for residents to choose walking for their shopping. Thus, residents tend to use other modes, mainly the private car, for shopping purpose. The Taman Universiti neighborhood as an appropriate case study area for validating the PWA model, and was selected for the following reasons:
(1)
It was located in an urban setting (not suburb) providing a high accessibility to all shopping centers.
(2)
It has large-scale shopping centers that can support a wide range of residents’ needs.
(3)
It has numerous shop-houses that function as the small-scale shops competing with those large-scale shopping centers, and accounting for a relatively large share of walking trips.
(4)
Distance between each pair of shopping centers is in a normal walking distance (i.e., 400–900 m, equal to 5–10 min).
(5)
It does not have a public space or parks, thus the shopping centers play roles as focal points that inspire neighborhood vitality and livability.
To conduct the survey, a structured fixed format self-report questionnaire was designed to capture DTM of the pedestrians (i.e., residents) for walking towards each of three shopping centers. The survey data were collected through the Combined Scaling Method (CSM). The CSM obtains respondent’s perception through scoring and ranking the items [68]. The CSM method has potential to be integrated with the DTM analysis method. The CSM is the combination of two scaling methods: Categorical scaling and Ordinal Ranking scaling. The CSM assigns a separate number or letter to various index components from lowest to highest. Thus, the CSM provides a group of scores can be sorted by respondents (1 = strongly favorable to the concept, onward, to n = strongly unfavorable to the concept). In CSM, each score is chosen just one time in each cluster of variables. For example, if the cluster includes six criteria, the respondents are asked to sort them from one (i.e., most important criterion) to six (i.e., least important criterion). Following the DTM instruction, the CSM procedure has been conducted for the three layers of walkability variables in capturing the respondents’ decision making on walking path selection towards each shopping center (A, B, and C).

4.1. DTM Analysis

The collected data from the questionnaires were transferred to the DTM equations of the model. As an example, the data collection and analysis for the walkability feature “Sense of safety and security” for the Shopping Center A (Jusco) survey is explained in the following.
Example: F1. Sense of safety and security
The first row of Table 1 shows the sorting range from 1 to 5 (because there are 5 walkability features). Second row shows the “selection times” by all respondents of the survey.
According to Table 1, the Sense of safety and security was selected seven times as the most important feature (i.e., degree 1) among four other walkability features, was nine times selected as degree 2, and was selected three times as degree 3, and so on. The third row reveals the “weight value” of each degree; as the least sorting degree (i.e., number 1) identifies as the highest value (i.e., value is 5), if the “sense of safety and security” was chosen as degree 1, it has the highest value 5 in comparison with other walkability features. The fourth row of Table 1 calculates the “selection times” multiplied by the “weight value”. Total row describes the sum of amounts of the fourth row. Actually, the total number should be subtracted from the minimum number of the limitation range to find the “actual weight value” of the feature within the “minimum-to-maximum” range.
The limitation range is defined in this way. Minimum number can be recognized if whole respondent (for example, 24 persons) choose “Sense of safety and security” with the “weight value” of 1, meaning the minimum is 24 multiplied by 1, i.e. 24. The maximum number of the range is recognized if whole respondents (for example, 24 persons) choose “Sense of safety and security” as “weight value” of 5, thus the maximum number is 24 multiplied by 5, i.e. 120. The subtraction of maximum and minimum identifies the range. As can be seen in Table 1, the total 87 should be subtracted from minimum 24 to find 63 as the “actual weight value” of the factor “Sense of safety and security” in the range. To find the “Actual satisfactory percentage”, the “actual weight value” should be divided by the “limitation range”. For example, “actual weight value” of 63 should be divided by “limitation range” 96, which equals 0.6562. Then, the “Actual satisfactory percentage”, will be 65.62%.
This process should be done for the other four walkability features, eleven walkability criteria, and ninety-two walkability sub-criteria. The research processed the DTM of all participants involved in the pilot study. Table 2 shows the DTM analysis result for each destination (i.e., shopping center), individually, and inclusively (i.e., Overall Neighborhood).

4.2. Regression Analysis

The PWA model conducted the regression analysis to find both individual and inclusive impacts of destinations (i.e., shopping centers) to pedestrian’s walking path selection. The DTM analysis outputs of each destination was inserted as Score on Indicator (X) for regression analysis (see Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5). The following presents the regression analysis between each of shopping center (A, B, and C) and overall neighborhood walkability.
(A) Regression analysis between Shopping Center A Walkability and Overall Neighborhood Walkability (see Table 3):
SS = ( X X ¯ ) 2 = 5000.81
The variance ( s 2 ) was calculated as below:
s 2 = SS N = 2226.39 72   =   54.35
Then, the standard deviation (s) equals:
s   =   s 2   =   5.56
Pearson   correlation   coefficient   ( r )   =   XY   ( X ) ( Y ) N [   X 2   ( x )   2 N ] [ Y 2   ( Y )   2 N ]   = 8139   751 606 72 [   7413   564001 72 ] [ 10032   367236 72 ]     =   0.52
S X = X 2     ( X 2 ) N N = 564001     564001 72 72   =   8.78
S Y = Y 2     ( Y 2 ) N N = 367237     367237 72 72   =   7.09
Regression   Equation   ( Y ^ ) = Y ¯ + r   S Y S X   ( X X ¯ ) = 10.80 + 0.52   7.09 8.78   ( X 13.41 ) = 0.66696 X + 5.2211
(B) Regression analysis between Shopping Center B Walkability and Overall Neighborhood Walkability (see Table 4):
SS = ( X X ¯ ) 2 = 1930.43
The variance ( s 2 ) was calculated as below:
S 2 = S S N = 1930.43 72 = 26.81
Then, the standard deviation (s) equals:
s = s 2 = 5.17
Pearson   correlation   coefficient ( r ) = X Y ( X ) ( Y ) N [ X 2 ( X ) 2 N ] [ Y 2 ( Y ) 2 N ] = 6209 751 578 72 [ 7413 564001 72 ] [ 57032 437236 72 ] = 0.48
S x = X 2 ( X 2 ) N N = 564001 564001 72 72 = 8.78
S Y = Y 2 ( Y 2 ) N N = 483239 407275 72 72 = 6.23
Regression   Equation   ( Y ^ ) = Y ¯ + r   S Y S X   ( X X ¯ ) = 10.80 + 0.48   6.23 8.78   ( X 13.41 ) = 0.5361 X + 5.6938
(C) Regression analysis between Shopping Center C Walkability and Overall Neighborhood Walkability (see Table 5):
S S = ( X X ¯ ) 2 = 2676.77
The variance ( s 2 ) was calculated as below:
S 2 = S S N = 2676.77 72 = 37.17
Then, the standard deviation (s) equals:
s = s 2 = 6.09
Pearson   correlation   coefficient ( r ) = X Y ( X ) ( Y ) N [ X 2 ( X ) 2 N ] [ Y 2 ( Y ) 2 N ] = 8139 751 606 72 [ 7413 564001 72 ] [ 10032 367236 72 = 0.52
S x = X 2 ( X 2 ) N N = 564001 564001 72 72 = 8.78
S Y = Y 2 ( Y 2 ) N N = 367237 367237 72 72 = 7.09
Regression   Equation   ( Y ^ ) = Y ¯ + r   S Y S X   ( X X ¯ ) = 10.80 + 0.52   7.09 8.78   ( X 13.41 ) = 0.5035 X + 5.7131

5. Results and Findings

As can be seen in Table 2, the participants had different judgement on walkability sub-criteria in respect to each destination. In Shopping Center A, the participants believed that the sub-criterion “F1.C1.S2 Existence of Pedestrian Crossing” has the most significant role (26.67%) in the neighborhood’s walkability, which was the highest percentage for Shopping Center C (25.80%), as well. Hence, on the “overall” neighborhood’s walkability, which is the average of values from all three destinations, the sub-criterion “Existence of Pedestrian Crossing” plays the significant role (24.25%). In Shopping Center B, the sub-criterion “F2.C2.S2 Street-Facing Entrances” has the significant impact (24.19%) to the neighborhood’s walkability. In contrast, the DTM analysis resulted “F1.C3.S7 Street Surveillance” loads the least contributor (4.82%) to the neighborhood’s overall walkability; which makes room for urban designers and planners to allocate much more finance for improving the surveillance system of the streets in this neighborhood. The PWA model has established the grading based on the score index (see Table 6). In Table 6, the grade of each walkability variable measured in the Taman Universiti neighborhood can be determined. For instance, the sub-criterion “Existence of Pedestrian Crossing” rated as “Superior” grade means the pedestrian crossings in this neighborhood are well-designed and the residents are satisfied with them. The sub-criterion “Street Surveillance” attained the “very poor” grade, meaning the surveillance system of this neighborhood is non-usable and below standards, and the residents do not feel even minimum level of satisfaction; hence, it needs extensive improvement and/or correction actions.
The following presents the results of regression analysis of the association between each shopping center (A, B, and C) and the overall neighborhood walkability. According to the result of regression analysis, the association between measured variables (i.e., shopping centers walkability) and the conceptual variable (i.e., overall neighborhood walkability) was approximated with a straight line; thus, the result identifies the “linear relationship” among the measured variables and the conceptual variable. The regression analysis shows different patterns of residents’ DTM for walking towards each shopping destination, which were affected by different walkability characteristics of those destinations. According to the linear regression analysis results, the independent and dependent variables have a positive direct relationship. The research found that, although each shopping center meets specific portion of overall neighborhood’s walkability indexing, Shopping Center A has the main portion since the Pearson regression coefficient is higher than the other two shopping centers (r = 0.6696).
Regression Equation ( Y ^ ) = Y ¯ + r   S Y S X   ( X X ¯ ) = 10.80 + 0.52   7.09 8.78   ( X 13.41 ) = 0.66696 X + 5.2211 (see Figure 6).
Regression Equation ( Y ^ ) = Y ¯ + r   S Y S X   ( X X ¯ ) = 10.80 + 0.48   6.23 8.78   ( X 13.41 ) = 0.5361 X + 5.6938 (see Figure 7).
Regression Equation ( Y ^ ) = Y ¯ + r   S Y S X   ( X X ¯ ) = 10.80 + 0.52   7.09 8.78   ( X 13.41 ) = 0.5035 X + 5.7131 (see Figure 8).

6. Discussion

The study on walkability is a rapidly growing interest that integrates the expertise of several disciplines: transportation planning, urban design and planning, public health, and landscape architecture [69,70,71]. Indeed, urban walkability can safeguard the future performance of green and low-energy urban development by integrating the triple-bottom-line of sustainability [72,73,74]; environment protection (i.e., the environmental aspects of walkability), human well-being and livability (i.e., the social aspects of walkability), and economic sensitiveness (i.e., the economic aspects of walkability).
Previous researchers have mostly investigated the pedestrian’s walking behavior in macro-scale (i.e., urban planning and transportation planning) quantitatively and physically. However, the pedestrian’s walking behavior has been not been sufficiently explored in micro-scale (i.e., urban design) qualitatively. In this regard, this research has developed the Path Walkability Assessment (PWA) Index Model to quantify and measure the walkability of the built environment based on the individual’s decision-tree-making (DTM) in their walking patterns and route selection. Using the PWA model aids urban and transportation professionals as a design decision support tool to facilitate neighborhoods towards a walkable and pedestrian-friendly environment, particularly for shopping activity. The PWA index model incorporates networking with walkability concepts, where networking refers to the integration of “urban transportation networks” with opportunities for “social networking”.
(A)
The focus on urban transportation networking promotes urban connectivity, accessibility, and degree of street interconnectedness for achieving a more compact city development. This approach reduces the amount of land needed for constructing road and street facilities, reduces pollution emissions and energy resource consumption, shortens walking distances, provides more route choices, and reduces the need for wide, difficult-to-cross streets, which simultaneously improves urban aesthetics and vitality, and preserves open space and parks.
(B)
The focus on social networking identifies inconsistencies between the “perceptual qualities” of the urban built infrastructure and measures of “qualitative variables” that relate to people’s needs and preferences for activity opportunities within the urban environment that encourage the selection of walking rather other modes of travel. Hence, the research will address the walkability qualities (both tangible and intangible) of the built environment in allowing social community networks to pursue and satisfy basic daily needs and preferences on foot.
This research has conducted a survey with the residents of the Taman Universit neighborhood, which has 2500 householders. The research needed a fast and simple method to collect data from that large population who mostly speak in local Malay language (and cannot speak English fluently). In addition, the researcher has looked for a method that does not require to be trained, and the public can easily digest. Hence, the DTM method was employed, while there is room to employ other decision-tree methods such as Random Forests. The research has dealt with only 92 variables which made it possible to use f the decision-tree method, while the Random Forests method needs higher numbers of variables. The Random Forests method is a predictive model, while the DTM method is also descriptive, which was properly fitted to the aim of this research. The DTM was built based on an entire dataset using all the variables, while the random forest randomly selects some of the variables for multiple decisions.
Although DTM method can involve many layers, this research has applied just three layers, as the optimal size of tree, to reduce the complexity and hence to improve predictive accuracy of analyses. In fact, a large tree may increase the risks of overfitting the data and poorly generalizing to new samples, while a small tree might not capture important structural information about the sample space. In this research, the three-layered tree has made the procedure of data collection much faster and manageable, and produced valuable and valid results. This strategy used little power to classify instances. This research applied the smallest optimized tree strategy, which reduced the computational load of the model.

7. Conclusions

The research developsd the Path walkability Assessment (PWA) model which incorporates the New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Sustainability principles and strategies. The PWA index model is developed using Decision Tree Making (DTM) method. The application of DTM in path walkability assessment adds considerable value over conventional neighborhood urban-form analysis and conventional path-walkability analysis, especially in comparison to studies that focus only on mode-choice, trip chaining, and destination travel. The PWA model has a middle-out approach to enhance urban walkability. It considers both top-down and bottom-up approaches to boost urban walkability by engaging the participation of both government and private stakeholders in walkable urban growth and resilience. The PWA model as an urban design decision support tool is useful for urban designers and urban/transportation planners in deciding on future development/redevelopment and corrective actions.
The PWA model is a global-based tool that can be applied in any neighborhood in cities around the world. It determines the walkability score index and grade using environmental and physical qualities of a neighborhood with the aid of the residents’ needs, perception, and preferences. Applying this tool guides the urban designers in prioritizing their financial investment based on the attained grades. Ultimately, using this model contributes to less energy consumption, less CO2 and GHG emissions, and fewer street fatalities and accidents.
As future works, the tourist and tourist planners may use the output of this study. In addition, further studies may focus on:
-
Descriptive study on walkability index as the Smartphone Application
-
Formulating walkability index as a Smartphone Application
-
Developing a framework to assess correlation of neighborhood walkability through Smartphone Application.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Malaysia Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) grant vote No. R.J130000.7922.4S123. In addition, the authors appreciate these organizations for their supports and contributions and Research Management Center at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Author Contributions

Arezou Shafaghat, M. Salim Ferwati, Ali Keyvanfar, and Hasanuddin Lamit contributed to preparing this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

SymbolDescription
PWAPath Walkability Assessment
DTMDecision Tree Making
F i Features (1st layer of DTM)
C j Criteria (2nd Layer of DTM)
S k Sub-criteria (3rd Layer of DTM)
RrRespondent
A v W V F i C j S k Average Weight Value of the variable
R r R W V F i C j S k The abbreviation of Rate Weight Value of the variable by rth Respondent (Rr)
nTotal number of respondents
RWV MaxThe least possible Rate Value of the Variable by Respondent
A c W V F i Actual Weight Value of each variable in 1st Layer of DTM
A c W V F i C j Actual Weight Value of each variable in 2nd Layer of DTM
A c W V F i C j S k Actual Weight Value of each variable in 3rd Layer of DTM
Y ^ The predicted score of an individual on the dependent variable
Y ¯ The mean of independent variable
XThe scores of dependent variables
X ¯ The mean of dependent variable
S X The standard deviations of X
S Y The standard deviations of Y
rPearson correlation coefficient
NTotal number of the sample size
CSMThe Combined Scaling Method

Appendix A

Table A1. The Urban Path Walkability Index Assessment Model’s Variables (Clustered to Three Levels of Features, Criteria, and Sub-Criteria).
Table A1. The Urban Path Walkability Index Assessment Model’s Variables (Clustered to Three Levels of Features, Criteria, and Sub-Criteria).
Features
(Layer 1)
Criteria
(Layer 2)
Sub-Criteria
(Layer 3)
DescriptionCitations
F1.
Sense of Safety and Security
F1.C1.
Safety facilities at sidewalks
[F1.C1. S1] Driveway Curb-cuts, The points along the sidewalk that interrupt pedestrian’s continuous movement by automobiles entering driveways.[16,17,18,24,32,33,34]
[F1.C1. S2] Existence of Pedestrian Crossing,Pedestrian Crossing facilities in both segment and intersection exist in the different types, including marked crosswalk with pedestrian signal light, marked crosswalk with stop sign, marked crosswalk with hatching.[17,18,34,35,36,37]
[F1.C1. S3] Width of Utility Zones, The width of the sidewalk next to the curb allotted to street facilities.[17,24,26,33,38]
[F1.C1. S4] Shelters, For preservation against sun rain, and snow such as bus stations.[26,39,40]
[F1.C1. S5] Length of Tree Canopies, Total length of the center-line of the sidewalk walking zone covered by the tree canopies, including those planted on the private properties.[17,24,33,37]
[F1.C1. S6] Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances, Visual obstacles such as freeway overpass, utility poles and hanging wires make dissatisfaction on both street and sidewalk users.[26,33,34,41]
[F1.C1. S7] Sidewalk Steepness, The elevation difference between the end points of the segments divided by length of the segment.[16,24,28,33,42]
[F1.C1. S8] Existence of Bike Lanes, Bike Lanes would exist in both sides of the street.[26,28,34,36,43,44]
[F1.C1. S9] Existence of On-street Parking,On-street parking would exist on both sides of the street in the various forms: rectangular, diagonal, parallel, and non-parking. [17,32,39,43]
[F1.C1. S10] Informing the intersection blindness, It prevents continuous path of travel and cannot provide visual continuity of the streetscape. It requires additional signage which creates visual clutter[18,25]
[F1.C1. S11] Mid-block crossing, The element separates two parallel streets by solid obstacle such as grail, boulevard, or lighting.[17,24,35,43,44]
[F1.C1. S12] Providing over-bridgeA way to get over water or a freeway for pedestrians.[40]
F1.C2.
Slowing traffic speed
[F1.C2. S1] Existence of Pedestrian Crossing, Pedestrian Crossing facilities in both segment and intersection exist in different types, including marked crosswalk with pedestrian signal light, marked crosswalk with stop sign, and with hatching.[18,25,35,36,43,44]
[F1.C2. S2] Number(s) of Traffic Lanes, The number of traffic lanes design based on volume of street. The main and secondary street would have one or two traffic lanes.[16,17,35,36,44,45]
[F1.C2. S3] Traffic Signals, It is a pedestrian crossing facility located in the corner at the intersections or junctions.[26,33,34,45,46]
[F1.C2. S4] Traffic Calming Devices, Traffic Calming Devices are in different forms of speed bumps, chokers, bulb-out, chicanes, street closing with bollards, raised crosswalks, textured paving treatments, diverters, crossing islands, and mini-circles.[7,24,28,34,35,43]
[F1.C2. S5] Drivers’ respect to pedestrian, The manner causes drivers to slow down the speed to let pedestrians pass, especially in junctions, intersections.[7,27,45,47,48]
[F1.C2. S6] Slow Traffic speedMaking the mix of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles slow and safe when lot frontages are wide.[46]
F1.C3.
Security in day and nights
[F1.C3. S1] Sidewalk Lighting, Lighting would be located in both sides of the streets, or in a middle along the street segment.[24,26,35,43,44]
[F1.C3. S2] Number of Intermediary, Similar to façade transparencies, intermediaries are objects that link public space on the sidewalk and indoor private space, such as small tables and chairs outside restaurants[7,17,24,33,44]
[F1.C3. S3] Length of Tree Canopies, Total length of the center-line of the sidewalk walking zone covered by the tree canopies, including those planted on the private properties.[17,32,39,43]
[F1.C3. S4] Number of Street Trees, The street trees are mostly planted between the traffic zones and sidewalk passages, excluding small trees, bushes, and private property.[26,33,34,37,38]
[F1.C3. S5] Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances, Visual obstacles, such as freeway overpass, utility poles and hanging wires, make dissatisfaction on both street and sidewalk users.[7,24,26,28,41,45]
[F1.C3. S6] Not-crowded Route, Public realm where became cluttered and have high traffic.[7,24,40]
[F1.C3. S7] Street Surveillance, It limits the opportunity for crime by increasing the perception designing transparent barriers (glass walls, picket fences).[7,24,35,40,43]
[F1.C3. S8] Street-Facing Entrances, Street-facing entrances are in relationship with the orientation of the doors, proximity to the sidewalk (not more than 70 feet).[35,43,45,47,49,50,51]
[F1.C3. S9] Street-level Façade Transparency, The degree of visual access of pedestrians into the inside of adjacent buildings. It is mainly indicated by proportion of glass windows on façade. [28,34,42,49,50,51]
[F1.C3. S10] First Floor Use of Buildings, The first floor use of buildings in the segment are different; commercial, residential, office, industrial, and institutional.[7,16,22,24,45,50]
[F1.C3. S11] Upper-Floor WindowsThe windows facing the street in the segment in the second and third floors.[28,45,50,51]
F2.
Connectivity
F2.C1.
Sidewalk accessibility
[F2.C1. S1] Sidewalks networking,The linkages among the sidewalk routes which connects them tightly and systematically.[49,50,52]
[F2.C1. S2] Length of Sidewalks, A sidewalk is defined as a linear space for pedestrians separated from traffic zones by physical devices, such as vertical curb, bollards, or fences.[26,28,33,34,40,44]
[F2.C1. S3] Width of Walking Zones, The width of the clear passageway for pedestrians on the sidewalk excluding the utility zones.[7,24,26,33,38]
[F2.C1. S4] Continuity to diverse activity, Proper hierarchical understanding of places as physical, social and psychological dimensions of human experience.[18,25,27,45,47]
[F2.C1. S5] Length of Segments, The length between the center points of the two intersections along the street segment.[17,28,40,44,45]
[F2.C1. S6] Informing the Intersection blindness, It prevents continuous path of travel and cannot provide visual continuity of the streetscape. It requires additional signage which creates visual clutter[17,38]
[F2.C1. S8] Street signageDifferent sings to show the rule or functions of that specific place.[7,16,22,53]
F2.C2.
Physical connectivity
[F2.C2. S1] Sidewalk steepness, The elevation difference between the end points of the segments divided by length of the segment.[7,16,17,24,42,44,45,54]
[F2.C2. S2] Street-Facing Entrances, Street-facing entrances are in relationship with the orientation of the doors, proximity to the sidewalk.[35,43,45,47,50,51]
[F2.C2. S3] Street Signage, Different sings to show the rule or functions of that specific place.[7,24,27,53]
[F2.C2. S4] Length of SegmentThe length between the center points of the two intersections along the street segment.[17,28,40,44,45]
F3.
Comfort
F3.C1.
Physical comfort
[F3.C1. S1] Well-locating of service utilities, The service facilities need to be arranged and located properly within the walkable area not to compromise the walking activity. [35,43,44,45]
[F3.C1. S2] Amount of Street Furniture, There are many types of street furniture, such as benches, seating facilities, lighting, trashes, and drinking fountains.[17,26,33,34,37,38,45]
[F3.C1. S3] Sidewalk Lighting, Lighting would be located in both sides of the streets, or in a middle along the street segment.[17,18,24,25,26,44,45,55]
[F3.C1. S4] Number of Intermediary, Similar to façade transparencies, intermediaries are objects that link public space on the sidewalk and indoor private space, such as small tables and chairs outside restaurants.[17,26,33,34,37]
[F3.C1. S5] Shelters, For preservation against sun, rain, and snow such as bus stations[26,28,40]
[F3.C1. S6] Planting deciduous trees, Planting deciduous trees in both sides of streets for providing shading during a year.[45,54]
[F3.C1. S7] Existence and width of medians, The elements along the street segments separate it into two sides.[17,26,36,37,45,54]
[F3.C1. S8] Existence of On-street Parking, The places are design in the edge of streets for vehicle parking.[45,50]
[F3.C1. S9] Human Ergonomic Scale DesignIt is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of the interactions among humans and other elements of a street and urban system.[5,6,31,33,34,41,48,52,56,57,58]
F3.C2.
Environmentally comfort
[F3.C2. S1] Width of Walking Zones, The width of the clear passageway for pedestrians on the sidewalk excluding the utility zones.[17,26,33,34,38]
[F3.C2. S2] Types of Sidewalk Pavement, The sidewalk pavements are various, such as colored/patterned concrete, bricks, cobblestones, asphalt, or dirt.[26,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]
[F3.C2. S3] Number of Street Trees, The street trees are mostly planted between the traffic zones and the sidewalk passages, excluding small trees, bushes, and private property.[17,26,33,34,38]
[F3.C2. S4] Sidewalk Steepness, The elevation difference between the end points of the segments divided by length of the segment.[5,6,31,33,48,52,56]
[F3.C2. S5] Windy climate, Places or routes cannot break the wind by design or planting which makes air circulation.[26,39]
[F3.C2. S6] Not-crowded Route, Public realm where became cluttered and have high traffic.[28,40]
[F3.C2. S7] Height and types of Fences, There are different types of fences; chain-link, barbed wire, iron bars, and wood board. [45,50,51,54]
[F3.C2. S8] Street reserveThe land set aside for a street carriageway and verge incorporating the full width from property line to opposite property line.[7,27,48]
F4.
Convenience
F4.C1.
Functionality of diverse activities
[F4.C1. S1] Number(s) of Traffic Lanes,The number of traffic lanes design based on volume of street. The main and secondary street would have one or two traffic lanes.[17,35,36,37,45]
[F4.C1. S2] Existence and width of medians,The elements along the street segments separates it into two sides[17,35,37,45]
[F4.C1. S3] Length of Segment, The length between the center points of the two intersections along the street segment.[17,28,33,40,45]
[F4.C1. S4] Width of Traffic Zones, Width of the moving traffic excluding on-street parking, bike lanes, left/right turn lanes, and medians.[16,33,34,38,43]
[F4.C1. S5] Widths of BuildingsWidths of buildings include garages and other structures with walls within each property. Normally, the buildings which are setback more than 70 feet from the property lines[26,36,37,45,54]
F4.C2.
Easy access without obstacles
[F4.C2. S1] Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances, Visual obstacles such as freeway overpass, utility poles and hanging wires make dissatisfaction on both street and sidewalk users.[7,16,22,41,53]
[F4.C2. S2] Traffic Signals, It is a pedestrian crossing facility located in the corner at the intersections or junctions.[18,22,46]
[F4.C2. S3] Sidewalk Steepness, The elevation difference between the end points of the segments divided by length of the segment.[7,19,22,53]
[F4.C2. S4] Not-crowded Route, Public realm where became cluttered and have high traffic.[28,40]
[F4.C2. S5] Existence of On-street Parking, On-street parking would exist in both sides of the street in the various forms; rectangular, diagonal, parallel, and non-parking. [28,35,40,44,45]
[F4.C2. S6] Mid-block crossing, The element separates two parallel streets by solid obstacle such as grail, boulevard, or lighting.[28,40,45]
[F4.C2. S7] Height and types of Fences, There are different types of fences; chain-link, barbed wire, iron bars, and wood board. [31,40,44,45,51]
[F4.C2. S8] Public parking next to street, The places are design in the edge of streets for vehicle parking.[45,54]
[F4.C2. S9] Slow Traffic speedMaking the mix of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles slow and safe when lot frontages are wide.[46]
F5.
Attractiveness and Aesthetic
F5.C1.
Street enclosure
[F5.C1. S1] Width of Curb-to-Curb Roadway, Pedestrian Crossing facilities in both segment and intersection exist in the different types, including marked crosswalk with pedestrian signal light, marked crosswalk with stop sign, marked crosswalk with hatching.[7,16,22,53]
[F5.C1. S2] Width of Utility Zones, The width of the sidewalk next to the curb allotted to street facilities.[26,38,45]
[F5.C1. S3] Building Setbacks, The building setback is the distance between the edge of sidewalk and the primary façade line of building or walls.[28,34,50,51]
[F5.C1. S4] Width of buffer zone,Width of buffers on the both sides of the street where is the space between edge of traffic lane and the clear passage of the sidewalk. [28,34,50,54,59,60]
[F5.C1. S5] Street reserve, The land set aside for a street carriageway and verge incorporating the full width from property line to opposite property line.[7,48,56]
[F5.C1. S6] Diversity of buildings, The diversity in building functions and shapes make diverse destinations for pedestrian who can memorize them as the landmarks.[17,33]
[F5.C1. S7] Mixed functionality of Adjacent Buildings, It is one of the major determinants of travel behavior by resident. It is interaction between commercial and residential uses which is the combination of public uses, employment uses.[17,28,33,40,45,50]
[F5.C1. S8] Enclosure ratio,It the ratio of average building-to-building distance to average building height of the street segment[7,24,28,34,51]
F5.C2.
Vibrancy and vitality
[F5.C2. S1] Planting diversity, The diversity in landscape and planting make diverse functions and roles through the paths and spaces for pedestrians.[42,54]
[F5.C2. S2] Sidewalk Lighting,Lighting would be located in both sides of the streets, or in a middle along the street segment.[7,17,24,26,33,38]
[F5.C2. S3] Width of Landscaping Strips, Width of the landscaping strips on both sides of the street.[7,24,26,33,35,43]
[F5.C2. S4] Types of Sidewalk Pavement, The sidewalk pavements are various, such as colored/patterned concrete, bricks, cobblestones, asphalt, or dirt.[17,26,33,35]
[F5.C2. S5] Intangible Senses, An asset that cannot be perceived by the senses, such as smelling of flowers[7,27,31,57]
[F5.C2. S6] Planting deciduous trees, Planting deciduous trees in both sides of streets for providing shading during a year.[28,34]
[F5.C2. S7] Length of Tree Canopies, Total length of center-line of the sidewalk zone covered by the tree canopies, including those planted on the private properties.[28,34,40,44,45]
[F5.C2. S8] Number of Street Trees, The street trees are mostly planted between the traffic zones and the sidewalk passages, excluding small trees less (less than five inches), bushes, and private property.[17,28,40,44,45]
[F5.C2. S9] Vital Atmosphere in sidewalks, Complex of intangible characteristics of place make it attractive to actual and potential residents and influences their behavior in observable ways.[25,31,35,36,43,44,58]
[F5.C2. S10] Street InterfaceUsing streetscape treatments as transitional elements between commercial and residential areas.[26,38,45]
[F5.C2. S11] Heights of Buildings, Vertical measure of the building located in both sides of the street, which should balance with the street width and adjacent buildings.[7,24,35,40,43]
[F5.C2. S12] Upper-Floor Windows, The windows facing the street in the segment in the second and third floors.[26,38,45,61]
[F5.C2. S13] Skyline heightThe line along the surface of the earth and the sky appear to meet.[26,38,45,51]

References

  1. Mikalsen, R.; Wang, Y.; Roskilly, A. A comparison of Miller and Otto cycle natural gas engines for small scale CHP applications. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 922–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bereitschaft, B. Equity in Microscale Urban Design and Walkability: A Photographic Survey of Six Pittsburgh Streetscapes. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Blecic, I.; Canu, D.; Cecchini, A.; Congiu, T.; Fancello, G. Walkability and Street Intersections in Rural-Urban Fringes: A Decision Aiding Evaluation Procedure. Sustainability 2017, 9, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. National Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (CDC). 2017. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/foa.htm (accessed on 30 September 2017).
  5. Clifton, K.J.; Livi, S.L.; Andrea, D.; Rodriguez, D. The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. J. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 80, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. New Zealand Transport Agency. 2009. Available online: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/planning-policy-manual/index.html (accessed on 30 January 2017).
  7. Frank, L.D.; Sallis, J.; Saelens, R.; Leary, L.; Cain, K.; Conway, T.L.; Hess, P.M. Application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. J. Sports Med. 2011, 44, 924–933. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gindroz, R.; Levine, K. The Urban Design Handbook: Techniques and Working Methods; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Liu, Q.; Li, C. The built environment and walking activity of the elderly: An empirical analysis in the Zhongshan metropolitan area, China. Sustainability 2014, 6, 1076–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Addy, C.L.; Wilson, D.K.; Kirtland, K.A.; Ainsworth, B.E.; Sharpe, P.; Kimsey, D. Associations of Perceived Social and Physical Environmental Supports with Physical Activity and Walking Behaviour. Am. J. Public Health 2004, 94, 440–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Rimer, B.K.; Glanz, K. Theory at Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practice; National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
  12. Rimer, B.K. Models of individuals health behaviour. In Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4th ed.; Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K., Viswanath, K., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  13. Titze, S.; Giles-Corti, B.; Knuiman, M.W.; Pikora, T.J.; Timperio, A.; Bull, F.C.; Van Niel, K. Associations between intrapersonal and neighborhood environmental characteristics and cycling for transport and recreation in adults: Baseline results from the RESIDE study. J. Phys. Act. Health 2010, 7, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Shafray, E.; Kim, S. A Study of Walkable Spaces with Natural Elements for Urban Regeneration: A Focus on Cases in Seoul, South Korea. Sustainability 2017, 9, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shafaghat, A. Path Walkability Assessment Framework Based on Decision Tree Analysis of Pedestrian Travelers’ Retail Walking. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Bundesstaat Johor, Malaysia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ewing, R.; Handy, S.; Brownson, L.; Clemente, O. Identifying and Measuring Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Banff, AB, Canada, 11–14 February 2006. [Google Scholar]
  17. Harkey, D.L.; Zegeer, C. PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System; Report of Grant no. DTFH61-99-X-00003; University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  18. Moudon, A.V.; Hess, P.; Matlick, J.M.; Pergakes, N. Pedestrian location identification tools: Identifying suburban areas with potentially high latent demand for pedestrian travel. Transp. Res. Rec. 2012, 1818, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center. 2011. Available online: http://www.pciaonline.org/node/114 (accessed on 30 May 2017).
  20. Michael, Y.L.; Keast, E.M.; Chaudhury, H.; Day, K.; Mahmood, A.; Sarte, A.F.I. Revising the senior walking environmental assessment tool. Prev. Med. 2009, 48, 247–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Zegeer, C.V.; Carter, D.L.; Hunter, W.W.; Stewart, J.R.; Huang, H.; Do, A.H.; Sandt, L.S. Index for Assessing Pedestrian Safety at Intersections. Transp. Res. Rec. 2006, 982, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hoehner, C.M.; Ivy, A.; Brennan Ramirez, L.K.; Handy, S.L.; Brownson, R.C. The Active Neighborhood Checklist: A reliable and user-friendly tool for assessing activity-friendliness. Am. J. Health Promot. 2007, 21, 534–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Dannenberg, A. Assessing the walkability of the workplace: A new audit. In Proceedings of the 4th National Congress of Pedestrian Advocates, America Walks, Silver Spring, MD, USA, 6–8 May 2004. [Google Scholar]
  24. 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 2003, 93, 1552–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Moudon, A.V.; Lee, C.; Cheadle, A.; Garvin, C.; Jonson, D.; Schmid, T.; Weathers, R.; Lin, L. Operational Definitions of Walkable Neighborhood: Theoretical and Empirical Insights. J. Phys. Act. Health 2006, 3, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Dixon, L. Bicycle and pedestrian level of service performance measures and standards for congestion management systems. Transp. Res. Rec. 1996, 1538, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. 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. 1994, 1466, 44–52. [Google Scholar]
  28. Boarnet, M.G.; Crane, R. The influence of land use on travel behavior: Specification and estimation strategies. Transp. Res. A 2001, 35, 823–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Babiano, I.M. Sustainable + Mobility + Management: Pedestrian Space Management as a Strategy in Achieving Sustainable Mobility; Susatinability Marketing Managmnet and Consumtion, Summer Academy, University of St. Gallen: St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  30. Painter, K. The influence of street lighting improvements on crime, fear and pedestrian street use, after dark. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1996, 35, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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] [CrossRef]
  32. Bradshaw, C. Creating and using a rating system for neighborhood walkability: Towards an agenda for local heroes. In Proceedings of the 14th International Pedestrian Conference, Boulder, CO, USA, 1 October 1993. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lynch, K.; Gary Hack, G. Site Planning, 3rd ed.; Maple-vail Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  34. Boarnet, M.G. The Built Environment and Physical Activity: Empirical Methods and Data Resource; University of California Transportation Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  35. Southworth, M.; Ben-Joseph, E. Reconsidering the cul-de-sac. ACCESS Mag. 2004, 1, 28–33. [Google Scholar]
  36. Emery, J.; Crump, C.; Bors, P. Reliability and validity of two instruments designed to assess the walking and bicycling suitability of sidewalks and roads. Am. J. Health Promot. 2003, 18, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Boarnet, M.; Anderson, C.; Day, K.; Mcillan, T.; Alfonzo, M. Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School Legislation: Urban Form Changes and Children’s Active transportation to School. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Gallin, N. Quantifying Pedestrian friendliness- Guidelines for Assessing Pedestrian level of Service. J. Road Trans. Res. 2001, 10, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  39. Khisty, C.J. Operationalizing Concepts of Equity for Public Project Investment. Transp. Res. Rec. 1997, 1559, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Crane, R.; Crepeau, R. Does Neigbourhood Design Influence Travel? Behavioral Analysis of Travel Diary and GIS Data; UCTC Working Paper No.374; University of California Transportation Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  41. Humpel, N.; Owen, N.; Leslie, E.; Marshall, A.L.; Bauman, A.E.; Sallis, J.F. Associations of location and perceived environmental attributes with walking in neighborhoods. Am. J. Health Promot. 2004, 18, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Jacobs, K. Discourse analysis and its utility for urban policy research. Urban Policy Res. 2006, 24, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Southworth, M. Designing the Walkable City. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2005, 131, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ewing, R.; Schmid, T.; Killingsworth, R.; Zlot, A.; Raudenbush, S. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. In Urban Ecology; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2008; pp. 567–582. [Google Scholar]
  45. Handy, L.S.; Boarnet, M.G.; Ewing, R.; Killingsworth, R.E. How the built environment affects physical activity. Views from Urban Planning. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 23, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Duncan, M.J.; Spence, J.C.; Mummery, W.K. Perceived environment and physical activity: A meta-analysis of selected environmental characteristics. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2005, 2, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Handy, S.L. Urban Form and Pedestrian choices: Study of Austin neighborhoods. Transp. Res. Rec. 1996, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rodriguez, D.; Joo, J. The relationship between non-motorized mode choice and the local physical environment. Trans. Res. D 2004, 9, 151–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Handy, S.; Cao, X.; Mokhtarian, P. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Trans. Res. D 2005, 10, 427–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Calthorpe, P.; Poticha, S. The Next American Metropolis, Ecology, Communities, and the America Dream; Priceton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  51. Cervero, R. Built environments and mode choice: Toward a normative framework. Trans. Res. D 2002, 7, 265–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Handy, S.L.; Clifton, K. Evaluating Neighborhood Accessibility: Issues and Methods Using Geographic Information Systems; (No. SWUTC/00/167202-1); Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas: Austin, TX, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  53. Badland, H.; Schofield, G. Transport, urban design, and physical activity: An evidence based update. Trans. Res. D 2005, 10, 177–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Boarnet, M.; Day, K.; Alfonzo, M.; Forsyth, A.; Oakes, M. The Irvine-Minnesota Inventory to Measure Built environment: Reliability Tests. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2006, 30, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ewing, R. Can the physical environment determine physical activity levels? Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2005, 33, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Clifton, K.; Livi, A.; Rodriguez, D.A. Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool. Planning 2005, 80, 95–110. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pikora, T.; Giles-Corti, B.; Bull, F.C.; 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]
  58. Kitamura, R.; Fujii, S. Two computational process models of activity-travel behavior. In Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modeling; Garling, T., Laitila, T., Westin, K., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishin Ltd.: Bingley, UK, 1998; pp. 251–279. [Google Scholar]
  59. Guttenplan, M.; Landis, B.W.; Crider, L.; McLeod, D.S. Multi-modal level of service Analysis at planning level. Transp. Res. Rec. 2001, 1776, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Landis, B.W.; Vattikuti, V.R.; Ottenberg, R.M.; McLeod, D.S.; Guttenplan, M. Modeling the roadside walking environment: A Pedestrian Level of Service. Transp. Res. Board 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Matan, A.; Newman, P.; Trubka, R.; Beattie, C.; Selvey, L.A. Health, Transport and Urban Planning: Quantifying the Links between Urban Assessment Models and Human Health. Urban Policy Res. 2015, 33, 145–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Boitsidis, A.J. A decision Support system for identifying the habitat quality and rehabilitation potential of Urban Rivers. Water Environ. J. 2006, 20, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Byrd, E.T.; Gustke, I. A brief history of decision making. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2007, 84, 32–42. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhang, X.; Jiang, H.; Jin, J.; Xu, X.; Zhang, Q. Analysis of acid rain patterns in northeastern China using a decision tree method. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 46, 590–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Simard, M.; Saatchi, S.S.; De Grandi, G. The Use of Decision Tree and Multiscale Texture for Classification of JERS-1 SAR Data over Tropical Forest. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2000, 38, 2310–2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fries, R.D.; Hansen, M.; Townshend, J.; Sohlberg, R. Global land cover classification at 8 km spatial resolution: The use of data derived from land sat imagery in decision tree classifiers. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1998, 19, 3141–3168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Aitkenhead, M.J. A coevolving decision tree classification method. J. Expert Syst. Class 2007, 34, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Stangor, C. Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed.; Houghton Mifflin Company, University of Maryland: College Park, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  69. Shafaghat, A.; Keyvanfar, A.; Lamit, H.; Mousavi, A.; Majid, M.Z.A. Open plan office design features affecting staff’s health and well-being status. J. Teknol. 2014, 70, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lamit, H.B.; Shafaghat, A.; Majid, M.Z.; Keyvanfar, A.; Ahmad, M.H.B.; Malik, T.A. The Path Walkability Index (PAWDEX) Model: To Measure Built Environment Variables Influencing Residents' Walking Behavior. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2013, 19, 3017–3020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shafaghat, A.; Manteghi, G.; Keyvanfar, A.; Lamit, H.B.; Saito, K.; Ossen, D.R. Street geometry factors influence urban microclimate in tropical coastal cities: A review. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2016, 17, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lamit, H.B.; Shafaghat, A.; Majid, M.Z.; Keyvanfar, A.; Hamdan, M.; Ahmad, B.; Malik, T.A.; Zin, R.; Yadollahi, M. Application of the Path Walkability Index (PAWDEX) Model: A Case Study of Retail Walking Pattern Recognition in Taman University Skudai, Johor, Malaysia. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2013, 19, 3021–3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shafaghat, A.; Keyvanfar, A.; Manteghi, G.; Lamit, H.B. Environmental-conscious factors affecting street microclimate and individuals’ respiratory health in tropical coastal cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 21, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shafaghat, A.; Keyvanfer, A.; Muslim, N.H.B. Drivers’ adaptive travel behaviors towards green transportation development: A critical review. Arch. Transp. 2016, 38, 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Taxonomy of walkability studies (Source: Shafaghat [15]).
Figure 1. Taxonomy of walkability studies (Source: Shafaghat [15]).
Sustainability 10 01035 g001
Figure 2. Path walkability assessment based on individual’s decision-tree-making (DTM) within three shopping center alternatives.
Figure 2. Path walkability assessment based on individual’s decision-tree-making (DTM) within three shopping center alternatives.
Sustainability 10 01035 g002
Figure 3. Schematic data collection and analysis of the “Well-designed” Path Walkability Index Assessment Model based on DTM method.
Figure 3. Schematic data collection and analysis of the “Well-designed” Path Walkability Index Assessment Model based on DTM method.
Sustainability 10 01035 g003
Figure 4. Pedestrian Needs Hierarchy (Adopted from Babiano [29]).
Figure 4. Pedestrian Needs Hierarchy (Adopted from Babiano [29]).
Sustainability 10 01035 g004
Figure 5. Taman Universiti Neighborhood Boundary, in Skudai, Malaysia. The locations of shopping centers are marked.
Figure 5. Taman Universiti Neighborhood Boundary, in Skudai, Malaysia. The locations of shopping centers are marked.
Sustainability 10 01035 g005
Figure 6. Scatter-plot diagram resulted from regression analysis of predicted overall neighborhood walkability based on Shopping Center A walkability.
Figure 6. Scatter-plot diagram resulted from regression analysis of predicted overall neighborhood walkability based on Shopping Center A walkability.
Sustainability 10 01035 g006
Figure 7. Scatter-plot diagram resulted from regression analysis of predicted overall neighborhood walkability based on Shopping Center B walkability.
Figure 7. Scatter-plot diagram resulted from regression analysis of predicted overall neighborhood walkability based on Shopping Center B walkability.
Sustainability 10 01035 g007
Figure 8. Scatter-plot diagram resulted from regression analysis of predicted overall neighborhood walkability based on Shopping Center C walkability.
Figure 8. Scatter-plot diagram resulted from regression analysis of predicted overall neighborhood walkability based on Shopping Center C walkability.
Sustainability 10 01035 g008
Table 1. Data Analysis calculation of “Sense of Safety and security” for Shopping Center A.
Table 1. Data Analysis calculation of “Sense of Safety and security” for Shopping Center A.
Sense of Safety and Security for Shopping Center A
Ranking Score12345
Quantity79323
Value54321
Quantity × Value3536943
Total87
Actual Weight Value87 − 24 = 63
Total (Sum) = 35 + 36 + 9 + 4 + 3   = 87
Maximum Number = 24   ×   5 = 120
Minimum Number = 24   ×   1 = 24
Limitation Range = Maximum Number − Minimum Number = 120 − 24 = 96
Actual Weight Value of the “Sense of safety and security” in the “Limitation range” = Total − Minimum Number = 87 − 24 = 63
“Actual satisfactory percentage” of the “Sense of safety and security” = Actual   Weight   Value Limitation   Range   × 100 %   = 63 96     × 100 % = 65.62%
Table 2. Walkability sub-criteria analysis for three shopping centers A, B, and C.
Table 2. Walkability sub-criteria analysis for three shopping centers A, B, and C.
FeaturesCriteriaSub-CriteriaShopping Center
A (%)
Shopping Center
B (%)
Shopping Center
C (%)
Walkability Index of Overall Neighborhood (%)
F1.
Sense of Safety and Security
F1.C1.
Safety facilities at sidewalks
F1.C1. S1 Driveway Curb-cuts25.4319.1218.6421.06
F1.C1. S2 Existence of Pedestrian Crossing27.5419.4225.824.25
F1.C1. S3 Width of Utility Zones2416.7311.2517.33
F1.C1. S4 Shelters2412.3412.8216.41
F1.C1. S5 Length of Tree Canopies15.5310.6810.2812.16
F1.C1. S6 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances8.13.2213.828.38
F1.C1. S7 Sidewalk Steepness21.6711.567.5713.60
F1.C1. S8 Existence of Bike Lanes12.598.238.779.86
F1.C1. S9 Existence of On-street Parking9.546.8914.3710.27
F1.C1. S10 Informing the intersection blindness4.766.879.046.89
F1.C1. S11 Mid-block crossing10.0518.7816.9415.26
F1.C1. S12 Providing over-bridge10.818.628.929.45
F1.C2.
Slowing traffic speed at pedestrian crossing
F1.C2. S1 Existence of Pedestrian Crossing24.968.2317.6616.95
F1.C2. S2 Number(s) of Traffic Lanes19.0714.6919.3917.72
F1.C2. S3 Traffic Signals24.3615.6822.1620.73
F1.C2. S4 Traffic Calming Devices3.74.7011.426.61
F1.C2. S5 Drivers’ respect to pedestrian4.765.487.906.05
F1.C2. S6 Slow Traffic speed11.7812.6719.4714.64
F1.C3.
Security in day and nights
F1.C3. S1 Sidewalk Lighting19.076.9712.6412.89
F1.C3. S2 Number of Intermediary13.948.5510.9311.14
F1.C3. S3 Length of Tree Canopies9.589.4914.5711.21
F1.C3. S4 Number of Street Trees11.486.4819.9512.64
F1.C3. S5 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances8.44.65.576.19
F1.C3. S6 Not-crowded Route20.0412.0618.9417.01
F1.C3. S7 Street Surveillance6.352.975.144.82
F1.C3. S8 Street-Facing Entrances22.877.8714.7815.17
F1.C3. S9 Street-level Façade Transparency11.049.4520.2113.57
F1.C3. S10 First Floor Use of Buildings9.949.4918.9712.80
F1.C3. S11 Upper-Floor Windows8.0314.736.459.74
F2.
Connectivity
F2.C1.
Sidewalk accessibility
F2.C1. S1 Sidewalks networking22.9216.4818.9619.45
F2.C1. S2 Length of Sidewalks22.515.0324.6420.72
F2.C1. S3 Width of Walking Zones21.917.1827.4922.19
F2.C1. S4 Continuity to diverse activity9.6312.3921.3514.46
F2.C1. S5 Length of Segments11.3610.9616.0412.79
F2.C1. S6 Informing the Intersection blindness25.678.2615.5016.48
F2.C1. S8 Street signage8.447.9311.039.13
F2.C2.
Physical connectivity
F2.C2. S1 Sidewalk steepness19.8520.713.0517.87
F2.C2. S2 Street-Facing Entrances21.6624.1921.9322.59
F2.C2. S3 Street Signage7.449.9020.1312.49
F2.C2. S4 Length of Segment21.4022.8918.9021.09
F3. ComfortF3.C1.
Physical comfort
F3.C1. S1 Well-locating of service utilities21.3717.4725.8821.57
F3.C1. S2 Amount of Street Furniture16.5515.9029.7520.73
F3.C1. S3 Sidewalk Lighting15.8012.9214.6714.46
F3.C1. S4 Number of Intermediary9.6310.2114.6711.50
F3.C1. S5 Shelters10.3810.6511.6610.90
F3.C1. S6 Planting deciduous trees26.6715.1214.9418.91
F3.C1. S7 Existence and width of medians 8.488.0919.6812.08
F3.C1. S8 Existence of On-street Parking7.8210.0813.8010.57
F3.C1. S9 Human Ergonomic Scale Design18.659.458.6212.24
F3.C2.
Environmentally comfort
F3.C2. S1 Width of Walking Zones, 24.2913.5216.8418.22
F3.C2. S2 Types of Sidewalk Pavement, 21.3721.2713.3918.68
F3.C2. S3 Number of Street Trees, 9.0214.0610.9611.35
F3.C2. S4 Sidewalk Steepness, 4.039.038.967.34
F3.C2. S5 Windy climate, 10.582.434.375.79
F3.C2. S6 Not-crowded Route, 19.0721.3513.5417.99
F3.C2. S7 Height and types of Fences, 24.3616.0411.6817.36
F3.C2. S8 Street reserve5.4719.049.0711.19
F4. ConvenienceF4.C1.
Functionality of diverse activities
F4.C1. S1 Number(s) of Traffic Lanes6.805.4113.368.52
F4.C1. S2 Existence and width of medians2.0713.0925.0912.16
F4.C1. S3 Length of Segment1.083.8911.315.43
F4.C1. S4 Width of Traffic Zones11.5710.394.438.80
F4.C1. S5 Widths of Buildings9.0316.687.0510.92
F4.C2.
Easy access without obstacles
F4.C2. S1 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances6.779.3613.609.91
F4.C2. S2 Traffic Signals6.986.5313.849.12
F4.C2. S3 Sidewalk Steepness 4.387.7310.507.54
F4.C2. S4 Not-crowded Route,5.138.8310.748.23
F4.C2. S5 Existence of On-street Parking3.415.446.655.17
F4.C2. S6 Mid-block crossing4.014.3514.087.48
F4.C2. S7 Height and types of Fences2.744.3613.366.82
F4.C2. S8 Public parking next to street20.156.637.5311.44
F4.C2. S9 Slow Traffic speed11.501.3715.299.39
F5. Attractiveness and AestheticF5.C1.
Street enclosure
F5.C1. S1 Width of Curb-to-Curb Roadway21.494.293.829.87
F5.C1. S2 Width of Utility Zones20.154.134.139.47
F5.C1. S3 Building Setbacks11.574.303.26.36
F5.C1. S4 Width of buffer zone9.036.637.127.59
F5.C1. S5 Street reserve6.946.637.537.03
F5.C1. S6 Diversity of buildings4.6311.3715.2910.43
F5.C1. S7 Mixed functionality of Adjacent Buildings15.686.3514.7812.27
F5.C1. S8 Enclosure ratio22.9413.8411.4016.06
F5.C2.
Vibrancy and vitality
F5.C2. S1 Planting diversity, 22.1012.296.6513.68
F5.C2. S2 Sidewalk Lighting,25.2613.292.7213.76
F5.C2. S3 Width of Landscaping Strips, 15.799.564.039.79
F5.C2. S4 Types of Sidewalk Pavement, 20.88.394.4311.21
F5.C2. S5 Intangible Senses, 6.556.437.056.68
F5.C2. S6 Planting deciduous trees, 11.4812.679.5711.24
F5.C2. S7 Length of Tree Canopies, 8.416.958.7711.37
F5.C2. S8 Number of Street Trees, 20.0415.5714.8516.82
F5.C2. S9 Building a Vital Atmosphere in sidewalks, 22.878.7710.9414.19
F5.C2. S10 Street Interface,11.9918.7813.9814.92
F5.C2. S11 Heights of Buildings, 15.7912.6713.3013.92
F5.C2. S12 Upper-Floor Windows, 8.0222.106.8312.32
F5.C2. S13 Skyline height11.7620.8311.0314.54
Table 3. Statistical Regression analysis for Shopping Center “A”.
Table 3. Statistical Regression analysis for Shopping Center “A”.
Walkability Sub-CriteriaScore on IndicatorMean Deviation ScoreMean Deviation Score Square
(X)(X − X ¯ )(X − X ¯ ) 2
F1.C1. S1 Driveway Curb-cuts25.4311.54133.1716
F1.C1. S2 Existence of Pedestrian Crossing27.5413.65186.3225
F1.C1. S3 Width of Utility Zones2410.11102.2121
F1.C1. S4 Shelters2410.11102.2121
F1.C1. S5 Length of Tree Canopies15.531.642.6896
F1.C1. S6 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances8.1−5.7933.5241
F1.C1. S7 Sidewalk Steepness21.677.7860.5284
F1.C1. S8 Existence of Bike Lanes12.59−1.31.69
F1.C1. S9 Existence of On-street Parking9.54−4.3518.9225
F1.C1. S10 Informing the intersection blindness4.76−9.1383.3569
F1.C1. S11 Mid-block crossing10.05−3.8414.7456
F1.C1. S12 Providing over-bridge10.81−3.08133.171
F1.C2. S1 Existence of Pedestrian Crossing24.9611.07122.5449
F1.C2. S2 Number(s) of Traffic Lanes19.075.1826.8324
F1.C2. S3 Traffic Signals24.3610.47109.6209
F1.C2. S4 Traffic Calming Devices3.7−10.19103.8361
F1.C2. S5 Drivers’ respect to pedestrian4.76−9.1383.3569
F1.C2. S6 Slow Traffic speed11.78−2.114.4521
F1.C3. S1 Sidewalk Lighting19.075.1826.8324
F1.C3. S2 Number of Intermediary13.940.050.0025
F1.C3. S3 Length of Tree Canopies9.58−4.3118.5761
F1.C3. S4 Number of Street Trees11.48−2.415.8081
F1.C3. S5 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances8.4−5.4930.1401
F1.C3. S6 Not-crowded Route20.046.1537.8225
F1.C3. S7 Street Surveillance6.35−7.5456.8516
F1.C3. S8 Street-Facing Entrances22.878.9880.6404
F1.C3. S9 Street-level Façade Transparency11.04−2.858.1225
F1.C3. S10 First Floor Use of Buildings9.94−3.9515.6025
F1.C3. S11 Upper-Floor Windows8.03−5.8634.3396
F2.C1. S1 Sidewalks networking22.929.0381.5409
F2.C1. S2 Length of Sidewalks22.58.6174.1321
F2.C1. S3 Width of Walking Zones21.98.0164.1601
F2.C1. S4 Continuity to diverse activity9.63−4.2618.1476
F2.C1. S5 Length of Segments11.36−2.536.4009
F2.C1. S6 Informing the Intersection blindness25.6711.78138.7684
F2.C1. S8 Street signage8.44−5.4529.7025
F2.C2. S1 Sidewalk steepness19.857.7760.3729
F2.C2. S2 Street-Facing Entrances21.667.7760.3729
F2.C2. S3 Street Signage7.44−6.4541.6025
F2.C2. S4 Length of Segment21.407.5156.4001
F3.C1. S1 Well-locating of service utilities21.377.4855.9504
F3.C1. S2 Amount of Street Furniture16.552.667.0756
F3.C1. S3 Sidewalk Lighting15.801.913.6481
F3.C1. S4 Number of Intermediary9.63−4.2618.1476
F3.C1. S5 Shelters10.38−3.5112.3201
F3.C1. S6 Planting deciduous trees26.6712.78163.3284
F3.C1. S7 Existence and width of medians 8.48−5.4129.2681
F3.C1. S8 Existence of On-street Parking7.82−6.0736.8449
F3.C1. S9 Human Ergonomic Scale Design18.654.7622.6576
F3.C2. S1 Width of Walking Zones, 24.2910.4108.16
F3.C2. S2 Types of Sidewalk Pavement, 21.377.4855.9504
F3.C2. S3 Number of Street Trees, 9.02−4.8723.7169
F3.C2. S4 Sidewalk Steepness, 4.03−9.8697.2196
F3.C2. S5 Windy climate, 10.58−3.3110.9561
F3.C2. S6 Not-crowded Route, 19.075.18133.1716
F3.C2. S7 Height and types of Fences, 24.365.1826.8324
F3.C2. S8 Street reserve5.4710.47109.6209
F4.C1. S1 Number(s) of Traffic Lanes6.8−8.4270.8964
F4.C1. S2 Existence and width of medians2.07−7.0950.2681
F4.C1. S3 Length of Segment1.08−12.81164.0961
F4.C1. S4 Width of Traffic Zones11.57−2.325.3824
F4.C1. S5 Widths of Buildings9.03−4.8623.6196
F4.C2. S1 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances6.77−7.1250.6944
F4.C2. S2 Traffic Signals6.98−6.9147.7481
F4.C2. S3 Sidewalk Steepness 4.38−9.5190.4401
F4.C2. S4 Not-crowded Route,5.13−8.7676.7376
F4.C2. S5 Existence of On-street Parking3.41−10.48109.8304
F4.C2. S6 Mid-block crossing4.01−9.88109.8304
F4.C2. S7 Height and types of Fences2.74−11.15124.3225
F4.C2. S8 Public parking next to street20.156.2639.1876
F4.C2. S9 Slow Traffic speed11.50−2.395.7121
F5.C1. S1 Width of Curb-to-Curb Roadway21.497.657.76
F5.C1. S2 Width of Utility Zones20.156.2639.1876
F5.C1. S3 Building Setbacks11.57−2.325.3824
F5.C1. S4 Width of buffer zone9.03−4.8623.6196
F5.C1. S5 Street reserve6.94−6.9548.3025
F5.C1. S6 Diversity of buildings4.63−9.2685.7476
F5.C1. S7 Mixed functionality of Adjacent Buildings15.681.793.2041
F5.C1. S8 Enclosure ratio22.949.0581.9025
F5.C2. S1 Planting diversity, 22.108.2167.4041
F5.C2. S2 Sidewalk Lighting,25.2611.37129.2769
F5.C2. S3 Width of Landscaping Strips, 15.791.93.61
F5.C2. S4 Types of Sidewalk Pavement, 20.86.9147.7481
F5.C2. S5 Intangible Senses, 6.55−7.3453.8756
F5.C2. S6 Planting deciduous trees, 11.48−2.415.8081
F5.C2. S7 Length of Tree Canopies, 8.4−5.4930.1401
F5.C2. S8 Number of Street Trees, 20.046.1537.8225
F5.C2. S9 Building a Vital Atmosphere in sidewalks, 22.878.9880.6404
F5.C2. S10 Street Interface,11.99−1.93.61
F5.C2. S11 Heights of Buildings, 15.791.93.61
F5.C2. S12 Upper-Floor Windows, 8.02−5.8734.4569
F5.C2. S13 Skyline height11.76−2.134.5369
X = 1278.6 X ¯ = 13.89 X (X − X ¯ ) 2 = 5000.81
Table 4. Statistical Regression analysis for Shopping Center “B”.
Table 4. Statistical Regression analysis for Shopping Center “B”.
Walkability Sub-CriteriaScore on IndicatorMean Deviation ScoreMean Deviation Score Square
(X)(X − X ¯ )(X − X ¯ ) 2
F1.C1. S1 Driveway Curb-cuts19.128.2467.8976
F1.C1. S2 Existence of Pedestrian Crossing19.428.2467.8976
F1.C1. S3 Width of Utility Zones16.735.5530.8025
F1.C1. S4 Shelters12.341.161.3456
F1.C1. S5 Length of Tree Canopies10.68−0.50.25
F1.C1. S6 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances3.22−7.9663.3616
F1.C1. S7 Sidewalk Steepness11.560.380.1444
F1.C1. S8 Existence of Bike Lanes8.23−2.958.7025
F1.C1. S9 Existence of On-street Parking6.89−4.2918.4041
F1.C1. S10 Informing the intersection blindness6.87−4.3118.5761
F1.C1. S11 Mid-block crossing18.787.657.76
F1.C1. S12 Providing over-bridge8.62−2.566.5536
F1.C2. S1 Existence of Pedestrian Crossing8.23−2.958.7025
F1.C2. S2 Number(s) of Traffic Lanes14.693.5112.3201
F1.C2. S3 Traffic Signals15.683.5112.3201
F1.C2. S4 Traffic Calming Devices4.7−6.4841.9904
F1.C2. S5 Drivers’ respect to pedestrian5.48−5.732.49
F1.C2. S6 Slow Traffic speed12.671.492.2201
F1.C3. S1 Sidewalk Lighting6.97−4.2117.7241
F1.C3. S2 Number of Intermediary8.55−2.636.9169
F1.C3. S3 Length of Tree Canopies9.49−1.692.8561
F1.C3. S4 Number of Street Trees6.48−4.722.09
F1.C3. S5 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances4.6−6.5843.2964
F1.C3. S6 Not-crowded Route12.060.880.7744
F1.C3. S7 Street Surveillance2.97−8.2167.4041
F1.C3. S8 Street-Facing Entrances7.87−3.3110.9561
F1.C3. S9 Street-level Façade Transparency9.45−1.7367.8976
F1.C3. S10 First Floor Use of Buildings9.49−1.692.8561
F1.C3. S11 Upper-Floor Windows14.733.5512.6025
F2.C1. S1 Sidewalks networking16.485.328.09
F2.C1. S2 Length of Sidewalks15.033.8514.8225
F2.C1. S3 Width of Walking Zones17.18636
F2.C1. S4 Continuity to diverse activity12.391.211.4641
F2.C1. S5 Length of Segments10.961.211.4641
F2.C1. S6 Informing the Intersection blindness8.26−0.2230.8025
F2.C1. S8 Street signage7.93−3.2510.562
F2.C2. S1 Sidewalk steepness20.79.5290.6304
F2.C2. S2 Street-Facing Entrances24.1913.01169.2601
F2.C2. S3 Street Signage9.90−1.281.6384
F2.C2. S4 Length of Segment22.8911.71137.124
F3.C1. S1 Well-locating of service utilities17.476.2939.5641
F3.C1. S2 Amount of Street Furniture15.904.7222.2784
F3.C1. S3 Sidewalk Lighting12.921.743.0276
F3.C1. S4 Number of Intermediary10.21−0.970.9409
F3.C1. S5 Shelters10.65−0.530.2809
F3.C1. S6 Planting deciduous trees15.123.9415.5236
F3.C1. S7 Existence and width of medians8.09−3.099.5481
F3.C1. S8 Existence of On-street Parking10.08−1.11.21
F3.C1. S9 Human Ergonomic Scale Design9.45−1.732.9929
F3.C2. S1 Width of Walking Zones,13.522.345.4756
F3.C2. S2 Types of Sidewalk Pavement,21.2710.09101.8081
F3.C2. S3 Number of Street Trees,14.062.888.2944
F3.C2. S4 Sidewalk Steepness,9.03−2.154.6225
F3.C2. S5 Windy climate,2.43−8.7576.5625
F3.C2. S6 Not-crowded Route,21.3510.17103.4289
F3.C2. S7 Height and types of Fences,16.044.8623.6196
F3.C2. S8 Street reserve19.040.380.1444
F4.C1. S1 Number(s) of Traffic Lanes5.41−5.7733.2929
F4.C1. S2 Existence and width of medians13.091.913.6481
F4.C1. S3 Length of Segment3.89−7.2953.1441
F4.C1. S4 Width of Traffic Zones10.39−0.790.6241
F4.C1. S5 Widths of Buildings16.685.530.25
F4.C2. S1 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances9.365.530.25
F4.C2. S2 Traffic Signals6.53−4.6521.6225
F4.C2. S3 Sidewalk Steepness7.73−3.4511.9025
F4.C2. S4 Not-crowded Route,8.83−3.4511.9025
F4.C2. S5 Existence of On-street Parking5.44−2.355.5225
F4.C2. S6 Mid-block crossing4.35−7.9663.3616
F4.C2. S7 Height and types of Fences4.36−11.18124.9924
F4.C2. S8 Public parking next to street6.63−4.5520.7025
F4.C2. S9 Slow Traffic speed1.37−9.8196.2361
F5.C1. S1 Width of Curb-to-Curb Roadway4.29−6.8947.4721
F5.C1. S2 Width of Utility Zones4.13−7.0549.7025
F5.C1. S3 Building Setbacks4.30−6.8847.3344
F5.C1. S4 Width of buffer zone6.63−4.5520.7025
F5.C1. S5 Street reserve6.63−4.5520.7025
F5.C1. S6 Diversity of buildings11.370.190.0361
F5.C1. S7 Mixed functionality of Adjacent Buildings6.35−4.8323.3289
F5.C1. S8 Enclosure ratio13.842.667.0756
F5.C2. S1 Planting diversity,12.291.111.2321
F5.C2. S2 Sidewalk Lighting,13.292.114.4521
F5.C2. S3 Width of Landscaping Strips,9.56−1.624.4521
F5.C2. S4 Types of Sidewalk Pavement,8.39−2.797.7841
F5.C2. S5 Intangible Senses,6.43−4.7522.5625
F5.C2. S6 Planting deciduous trees,12.671.492.2201
F5.C2. S7 Length of Tree Canopies,16.955.7733.2929
F5.C2. S8 Number of Street Trees,15.574.3919.2721
F5.C2. S9 Building a Vital Atmosphere in sidewalks,8.77−2.415.8081
F5.C2. S10 Street Interface,18.787.657.76
F5.C2. S11 Heights of Buildings,12.671.492.2201
F5.C2. S12 Upper-Floor Windows,22.1010.92119.2464
F5.C2. S13 Skyline height20.839.6593.1225
X = 1024.12 X ¯ = 13.08 X (X − X ¯ ) 2 = 2745.526
Table 5. Statistical Regression analysis for Shopping Center “C”.
Table 5. Statistical Regression analysis for Shopping Center “C”.
Walkability Sub-CriteriaScore on IndicatorMean Deviation ScoreMean Deviation Score Square
(X)(X − X ¯ )(X − X ¯ ) 2
F1.C1. S1 Driveway Curb-cuts18.645.5630.9136
F1.C1. S2 Existence of Pedestrian Crossing25.812.72161.7984
F1.C1. S3 Width of Utility Zones11.25−1.833.3489
F1.C1. S4 Shelters12.82−0.260.0676
F1.C1. S5 Length of Tree Canopies10.28−2.87.84
F1.C1. S6 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances13.820.740.5476
F1.C1. S7 Sidewalk Steepness7.57−5.5130.3601
F1.C1. S8 Existence of Bike Lanes8.77−4.3118.5761
F1.C1. S9 Existence of On-street Parking14.371.291.6641
F1.C1. S10 Informing the intersection blindness9.04−4.0416.3216
F1.C1. S11 Mid-block crossing16.943.8614.8996
F1.C1. S12 Providing over-bridge8.92−4.1617.3056
F1.C2. S1 Existence of Pedestrian Crossing17.664.5820.9764
F1.C2. S2 Number(s) of Traffic Lanes19.396.3139.8161
F1.C2. S3 Traffic Signals22.169.0882.4464
F1.C2. S4 Traffic Calming Devices11.42−1.662.7556
F1.C2. S5 Drivers’ respect to pedestrian7.9−5.1826.8324
F1.C2. S6 Slow Traffic speed19.476.3940.8321
F1.C3. S1 Sidewalk Lighting12.64−0.440.1936
F1.C3. S2 Number of Intermediary10.93−2.154.6225
F1.C3. S3 Length of Tree Canopies14.571.492.2201
F1.C3. S4 Number of Street Trees19.956.8747.1969
F1.C3. S5 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances5.57−7.5156.4001
F1.C3. S6 Not-crowded Route18.945.8634.3396
F1.C3. S7 Street Surveillance5.14−7.9463.0436
F1.C3. S8 Street-Facing Entrances14.781.72.89
F1.C3. S9 Street-level Façade Transparency20.217.1350.8369
F1.C3. S10 First Floor Use of Buildings18.975.8934.6921
F1.C3. S11 Upper-Floor Windows6.45−6.6343.9569
F2.C1. S1 Sidewalks networking18.965.8834.5744
F2.C1. S2 Length of Sidewalks24.6411.56133.6336
F2.C1. S3 Width of Walking Zones27.4914.41207.6481
F2.C1. S4 Continuity to diverse activity21.358.27207.6481
F2.C1. S5 Length of Segments16.042.968.7616
F2.C1. S6 Informing the Intersection blindness15.502.425.8564
F2.C1. S8 Street signage11.03−2.054.2025
F2.C2. S1 Sidewalk steepness13.05−0.030.0009
F2.C2. S2 Street-Facing Entrances21.938.8578.3225
F2.C2. S3 Street Signage20.137.0549.7025
F2.C2. S4 Length of Segment18.905.8233.8724
F3.C1. S1 Well-locating of service utilities25.8812.8163.84
F3.C1. S2 Amount of Street Furniture29.7516.67277.8889
F3.C1. S3 Sidewalk Lighting14.671.592.5281
F3.C1. S4 Number of Intermediary14.671.592.5281
F3.C1. S5 Shelters11.66−1.422.0164
F3.C1. S6 Planting deciduous trees14.941.863.4596
F3.C1. S7 Existence and width of medians 19.686.643.56
F3.C1. S8 Existence of On-street Parking13.800.720.5184
F3.C1. S9 Human Ergonomic Scale Design8.62−4.4619.8916
F3.C2. S1 Width of Walking Zones, 16.843.7614.1376
F3.C2. S2 Types of Sidewalk Pavement, 13.390.310.0961
F3.C2. S3 Number of Street Trees, 10.96−2.124.4944
F3.C2. S4 Sidewalk Steepness, 8.96−4.122.5281
F3.C2. S5 Windy climate, 4.37−8.7175.8641
F3.C2. S6 Not-crowded Route, 13.540.460.2116
F3.C2. S7 Height and types of Fences, 11.68−1.41.96
F3.C2. S8 Street reserve9.07−4.0116.0801
F4.C1. S1 Number(s) of Traffic Lanes13.360.280.0784
F4.C1. S2 Existence and width of medians25.0912.01144.2401
F4.C1. S3 Length of Segment11.31−1.773.1329
F4.C1. S4 Width of Traffic Zones4.43−8.6574.8225
F4.C1. S5 Widths of Buildings7.05−6.0336.360
F4.C2. S1 Releasing visual Obstacles/Nuisances13.60.27040.52
F4.C2. S2 Traffic Signals13.840.57760.76
F4.C2. S3 Sidewalk Steepness 10.506.6564−2.58
F4.C2. S4 Not-crowded Route,10.745.4756−2.34
F4.C2. S5 Existence of On-street Parking6.655.4756−6.43
F4.C2. S6 Mid-block crossing14.0811
F4.C2. S7 Height and types of Fences13.360.07840.28
F4.C2. S8 Public parking next to street7.5330.8025−5.55
F4.C2. S9 Slow Traffic speed15.294.8842.21
F5.C1. S1 Width of Curb-to-Curb Roadway3.82−9.2685.7476
F5.C1. S2 Width of Utility Zones4.13−8.9580.1025
F5.C1. S3 Building Setbacks3.2−9.8897.6144
F5.C1. S4 Width of buffer zone7.12−5.9635.5216
F5.C1. S5 Street reserve7.53−5.5530.8025
F5.C1. S6 Diversity of buildings15.292.214.8841
F5.C1. S7 Mixed functionality of Adjacent Buildings14.781.72.89
F5.C1. S8 Enclosure ratio11.40−1.682.8224
F5.C2. S1 Planting diversity, 6.65−6.4341.3449
F5.C2. S2 Sidewalk Lighting,2.72−10.36107.3296
F5.C2. S3 Width of Landscaping Strips, 4.03−9.0581.9025
F5.C2. S4 Types of Sidewalk Pavement, 4.43−8.6574.8225
F5.C2. S5 Intangible Senses, 7.05−6.0336.3609
F5.C2. S6 Planting deciduous trees, 9.57−3.5112.3201
F5.C2. S7 Length of Tree Canopies, 8.77−4.3118.5761
F5.C2. S8 Number of Street Trees, 14.851.773.1329
F5.C2. S9 Building a Vital Atmosphere in sidewalks, 10.94−2.144.5796
F5.C2. S10 Street Interface,13.980.90.81
F5.C2. S11 Heights of Buildings, 13.300.220.0484
F5.C2. S12 Upper-Floor Windows, 6.83−6.2539.0625
F5.C2. S13 Skyline height11.03−2.054.2025
X = 1029.06 X ¯ = 11.18 X (X − X ¯ ) 2 = 3332.25
Table 6. Grading Index of the Path Walkability Assessment (PWA) Index Model.
Table 6. Grading Index of the Path Walkability Assessment (PWA) Index Model.
Path Walkability Scores RatingDescription and Recommendations
Superior
25 to 30
Well-designed and pedestrian-friendly constructed sidewalk to which satisfies users; Minor improvements, if any, needed
Good
20 to <25
constructed sidewalk to which accommodates users; Minor improvements may improve to superior rating
Fair
10 to <20
Usable sidewalk to which some users do not feel high level of walkability; improvement, such as better facilities and amenities, almost needed
Poor
5 to <10
Usable sidewalk to which many users do not feel high level of walkability; significant improvement, such as lack of facilities and amenities, probably needed
Very Poor
0 to <5
Non-usable sidewalk to which users do not feel even medium level of walkability, and has sub-standard conditions combined with heavy traffic; Should be improved.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Keyvanfar, A.; Ferwati, M.S.; Shafaghat, A.; Lamit, H. A Path Walkability Assessment Index Model for Evaluating and Facilitating Retail Walking Using Decision-Tree-Making (DTM) Method. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041035

AMA Style

Keyvanfar A, Ferwati MS, Shafaghat A, Lamit H. A Path Walkability Assessment Index Model for Evaluating and Facilitating Retail Walking Using Decision-Tree-Making (DTM) Method. Sustainability. 2018; 10(4):1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041035

Chicago/Turabian Style

Keyvanfar, Ali, M. Salim Ferwati, Arezou Shafaghat, and Hasanuddin Lamit. 2018. "A Path Walkability Assessment Index Model for Evaluating and Facilitating Retail Walking Using Decision-Tree-Making (DTM) Method" Sustainability 10, no. 4: 1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041035

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop