Assessing the Rationality and Walkability of Campus Layouts
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Characteristics Affecting Walkability and Measuring Walkability
2.2. Walk Score
2.3. Campus Walkability
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Data Sources
- Facility layout. This paper classifies facilities according to 13 common types, dispensing with some rarely used facilities (e.g., hospital, affiliated kindergarten of the university, etc.). The paper also locates the facilities through POI (points of interest) data from Google Maps and field observation to add newly constructed or eliminate unused facilities (Figure 2).
- Street network. Dealing with road-network data collected in 2013, the paper also corrects it through the Cadmapper website and field observation to revise the problematic data to obtain an accurate outcome.
Gender | Old Campus (% of Sample) | New Campus (% of Sample) |
---|---|---|
Male | 50.9 | 61.3 |
Female | 49.1 | 39.7 |
Grade | ||
Undergraduate | 34.5 | 44.5 |
Graduate | 34.5 | 33.5 |
PhD candidate | 31 | 22 |
3.3. The Optimization Method of Walk Score
3.3.1. Establishing the Weight of Facility
- canteen and restaurant
- public teaching building,
- retail store,
- gym,
- library,
- square and green space,
- bus station,
- outdoor stadium,
- coffee shop,
- student activity center,
- bank and post office,
- administrative building,
- barber shop.
3.3.2. Fitting the Curve of Time-Decay
3.3.3. Calculating Campus Walk Score
4. Results
4.1. Overall Evaluation
4.2. Evaluation of Classified Facilities
4.3. Walkability Optimization
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Huang, J.; Hu, G. Comparison and thinking of the walkability measure methods on urban built environment. J. Hum. Settl. West China 2016, 31, 43–47. [Google Scholar]
- Sohn, D.W.; Moudon, A.V.; Lee, J. The economic value of walkable neighborhoods. Urban Des. Int. 2012, 17, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leyden, K.M. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1546–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hall, C.M.; Ram, Y. Walk score® and its potential contribution to the study of active transport and walkability: A critical and systematic review. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 61, 310–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, L.J.; Dunsiger, S.; Marcus, B.H. Validation of Walk Score for estimating access to walkable amenities. Br. J. Sports Med. 2011, 45, 1144–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, D.T.; Aldstadt, J.; Whalen, J.; Melly, S.J.; Gortmaker, S.L. Validation of Walk Score® for Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An Analysis of Four US Metropolitan Areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 4160–4179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajna, S.; Ross, N.; Joseph, L.; Harper, S.; Dasgupta, K. Neighbourhood walkability, daily steps and utilitarian walking in Canadian adults. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e008964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ariffin, R.N.R.; Zahari, R.K. Perceptions of the Urban Walking Environments. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 105, 589–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Forsyth, A. What is a walkable place? The walkability debate in urban design. Urban Des. Int. 2015, 20, 274–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyer, M.; Fina, S.; Siedentop, S.; Schlicht, W. Walkability is Only Part of the Story: Walking for Transportation in Stuttgart, Germany. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 5849–5865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pivo, G.; Fisher, J.D. The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Investments. Real Estate Econ. 2011, 39, 185–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, L.D.; Schmid, T.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Chapman, J.; Saelens, B.E. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taleai, M.; Sliuzas, R.; Flacke, J. An integrated framework to evaluate the equity of urban public facilities using spatial multi-criteria analysis. Cities 2014, 40, 56–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsou, K.-W.; Hung, Y.-T.; Chang, Y.-L. An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities. Cities 2005, 22, 424–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vale, D.S.; Saraiva, M.; Pereira, M. Active accessibility: A review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility. J. Transp. Land Use 2015, 9, 209–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, K.; Jeong, S. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 82, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cubukcu, E.; Hepguzel, B.; Onder, Z.; Tumer, B. Active Living for Sustainable Future: A Model to Measure “Walk Scores” via Geographic Information Systems. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 168, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salingaros, N. Planning, Complexity, and Welcoming Spaces: The Case of Campus Design, Chapter 18. In Handbook on Planning and Complexity; Gert, R., Claudia, Y., Christian, Z., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishers: Cheltenham, UK, 2020; pp. 353–372. [Google Scholar]
- Bartshe, M.; Coughenour, C.; Pharr, J. Perceived Walkability, Social Capital, and Self-Reported Physical Activity in Las Vegas College Students. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Horacek, T.M.; Yildirim, E.D.; Kattelmann, K.; Brown, O.; Byrd-Bredbenner, C.; Colby, S.; Greene, G.; Hoerr, S.; Kidd, T.; Koenings, M.M.; et al. Path Analysis of Campus Walkability/Bikeability and College Students’ Physical Activity Attitudes, Behaviors, and Body Mass Index. Am. J. Health Promot. 2016, 32, 578–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sisson, S.B.; McClain, J.J.; Tudor-Locke, C. Campus Walkability, Pedometer-Determined Steps, and Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity: A Comparison of 2 University Campuses. J. Am. Coll. Health 2008, 56, 585–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.-J.; Woo, A. What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households. Sustainability 2016, 8, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peiravian, F.; Derrible, S.; Ijaz, F. Development and application of the Pedestrian Environment Index (PEI). J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 39, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamíquiz Patxi, J.; Jorge, L.-D. Effects of built environment on walking at the neighbourhood scale. A new role for street networks by modelling their configurational accessibility? Transp. Res. Part A 2015, 74, 148–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brownson, R.C.; Hoehner, C.M.; Day, K.; Forsyth, A.; Sallis, J.F. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: State of the science. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009, 36, S99–S123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Forsyth, A.; Hearst, M.O.; Oakes, J.; Schmitz, K.H. Design and Destinations: Factors Influencing Walking and Total Physical Activity. Urban Stud. 2008, 45, 1973–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.; Moudon, A.V. Correlates of Walking for Transportation or Recreation Purposes. J. Phys. Act. Health 2006, 3, S77–S98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boeing, G.M. The Morphology and Circuity of Walkable and Drivable Street Networks. SSRN Electron. J. 2018, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmadpoor, N.; Smith, A.D.; Heath, T. Rethinking legibility in the era of digital mobile maps: An empirical study. J. Urban Des. 2020, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadpoor, N.; Shahab, S. Spatial Knowledge Acquisition in the Process of Navigation: A Review. Curr. Urban Stud. 2019, 7, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gao, Y.; Shahab, S.; Ahmadpoor, N. Morphology of Urban Villages in China: A Case Study of Dayuan Village in Guangzhou. Urban Sci. 2020, 4, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saelens, B.E.; Handy, S.L. Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, S550–S566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- McCormack, G.R.; Shiell, A. In search of causality: A systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Grasser, G.; Van Dyck, D.; Titze, S.; Stronegger, W. Objectively measured walkability and active transport and weight-related outcomes in adults: A systematic review. Int. J. Public Health 2013, 58, 615–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frank, L.D.; Sallis, J.F.; Saelens, B.E.; Leary, L.; Cain, K.; Conway, T.L.; Hess, P.M. The development of a walkability index: Application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. Br. J. Sports Med. 2010, 44, 924–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuzmyak, J.; Richard, C.B.; David, S. Use of walk opportunities index to quantify local accessibility. Transp. Res. Rec. 1977, 2006, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saghapour, T.; Moridpour, S.; Thompson, R.G. Measuring Walking Accessibility in Metropolitan Areas. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2017, 2661, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glazier, R.H.; Weyman, J.T.; Creatore, M.I.; Gozdyra, P.; Moineddin, R.; Matheson, F.I.; Booth, G.L. Development and validation of an urban walkability index for Toronto 2012, 1–21.
- Moudon, A.V. Washington State School Walk Score. 2020. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1773/45599 (accessed on 20 November 2020).
- Lee, S.; Lee, S.; Son, H.; Joo, Y. A New Approach for the Evaluation of the Walking Environment. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2013, 7, 238–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manaugh, K.; Ahmed, E.-G. Validating walkability indices: How do different households respond to the walkability of their neighborhood? Transp. Res. Part D 2011, 16, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberger, R.; Sweet, M.N. Integrating Walkability into Planning Practice. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2012, 2322, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duncan, D.T.; Aldstadt, J.; Whalen, J.; Melly, S.J. Validation of Walk Scores and Transit Scores for estimating neighborhood walkability and transit availability: A small-area analysis. GeoJournal 2012, 78, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, S.C.; Pantin, H.; Lombard, J.; Toro, M.; Huang, S.; Plater-Zyberk, E.; Perrino, T.; Perez-Gomez, G.; Barrera-Allen, L.; Szapocznik, J. Associations with Purposive Walking in Recent Cuban Immigrants. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013, 45, 202–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Carr, L.J.; Dunsiger, S.I.; Marcus, B.H. Walk Score™ As a Global Estimate of Neighborhood Walkability. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2010, 39, 460–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Koschinsky, J.; Talen, E. Affordable Housing and Walkable Neighborhoods: A National Urban Analysis. Cityscape 2015, 17, 13–56. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Qin, W.; Peng, J.; Li, W. The evaluation of walkability and daily facility distribution reasonability of Futian District, Shenzhen based on Walk Score. Urban Dev. Stud. 2014, 10, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Y. Walkability Evaluation Based on People’s Use of Facilities by Walking. Urban Plan. Forum 2013, 5, 113–118. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, J.; Hu, G.; Li, M. The Allocative Suitability of Community Facilities from the Perspective of the Elderly—Based on Walk Score Method. Urban Plan. Forum. 2017, 6, 45–53. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Shen, N. Walk score method-based evaluation of social service function of urban park green lands in Futian district, Shenzhen, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 7483–7492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Long, Y. Large-scale evaluation for street walkability: Methodological improvements and the empirical application in Chengdu. Shanghai Urban Plan. Rev. 2017, 1, 88–93. [Google Scholar]
- Long, Y.; Zhao, J.; Li, S.; Zhou, Y.; Xu, L. The large-scale calculation of ‘walk score’ of main cities in China. New Archit. 2018, 1, 4–8. [Google Scholar]
- Yingbin, L. The Walkability Measurement and the Validation Study of the Taoyuan District in Shenzhen. Ph.D. Thesis, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bereitschaft, B. Equity in neighbourhood walkability? A comparative analysis of three large U.S. cities. Local Environ. 2017, 22, 859–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bereitschaft, B. Equity in Microscale Urban Design and Walkability: A Photographic Survey of Six Pittsburgh Streetscapes. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- King, S.B.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Wilt, J.K.; Stowe, E.W. Walkability 101: A Multi-Method Assessment of the Walkability at a University Campus. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 2158244020917954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Maghelal, P.; Tso, Y.E.; Ryan, M.; Durodoye, J.; Wangpatravanich, P.; Jensen, K. Evaluating walkability and bikeability in a campus setting. PB&J 2016, 5, 11–29. [Google Scholar]
- Molina-García, J.; Castillo, I.; Sallis, J.F. Psychosocial and environmental correlates of active commuting for university students. Prev. Med. 2010, 51, 136–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peachey, A.A.; Baller, S.L. Perceived Built Environment Characteristics of On-Campus and Off-Campus Neighborhoods Associated with Physical Activity of College Students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2015, 63, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, J.A.; Ainsworth, B. Perceptions of Environmental Supports on the Physical Activity Behaviors of University Men and Women: A Preliminary Investigation. J. Am. Coll. Health 2007, 56, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, J.A.; Phillips, D.A. Relationships Between Physical Activity and the Proximity of Exercise Facilities and Home Exercise Equipment Used by Undergraduate University Students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2005, 53, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roemmich, J.N.; Balantekin, K.N.; Beeler, J.E. Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity. J. Am. Coll. Health 2014, 63, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vale, D.S.; Pereira, M.; Viana, C.M. Different destination, different commuting pattern? Analyzing the influence of the campus location on commuting. J. Transp. Land Use 2018, 11, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, Y.; Wang, D. Walkability measuring in America and its enlightenment. Urban Plan. Int. 2012, 27, 10–15. [Google Scholar]
- Walk Score 2011. Walk Score Methodology. Available online: https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml (accessed on 7 June 2011).
- Ewing, R.; Schmid, T.; Killingsworth, R.; Zlot, A.; Raudenbush, S. Relationship between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity. Am. J. Health Promot. 2003, 18, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hajrasouliha, A.H. Master-planning the American campus: Goals, actions, and design strategies. Urban Des. Int. 2017, 22, 363–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, S.S.Y.; Gou, Z.; Liu, Y. Healthy campus by open space design: Approaches and guidelines. Front. Arch. Res. 2014, 3, 452–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hipp, J.A.; Gulwadi, G.B.; Alves, S.; Sequeira, S. The Relationship Between Perceived Greenness and Perceived Restorativeness of University Campuses and Student-Reported Quality of Life. Environ. Behav. 2016, 48, 1292–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J. From better understandings to proactive actions: Housing location and commuting mode choices among university students. Transp. Policy 2014, 33, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slater, S.J.; Nicholson, L.; Chriqui, J.; Barker, D.C.; Chaloupka, F.J.; Johnston, L.D. Walkable communities and adolescent weight. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013, 44, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gordon-Larsen, P.; Hou, N.; Sidney, S.; Sternfeld, B.; Lewis, C.; Jacobs, D.R.; Popkin, B. Fifteen-year longitudinal trends in walking patterns and their impact on weight change. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 89, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sallis, J.F.; Hovell, M.F.; Hofstetter, C.R.; Elder, J.P.; Hackley, M.; Caspersen, C.J.; E Powell, K. Distance between homes and exercise facilities related to frequency of exercise among San Diego residents. Public Health Rep. 1990, 105, 179–185. [Google Scholar]
- Reed, J.A. Perceptions of the Availability of Recreational Physical Activity Facilities on a University Campus. J. Am. Coll. Health 2007, 55, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, A.C.; Jeffery, R.W.; Fridinger, F.; Dusenbury, L.; Provence, S.; Hedlund, S.A.; Spangler, K. Environmental and Policy Approaches to Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Through Physical Activity: Issues and Opportunities. Health Educ. Q. 1995, 22, 499–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koohsari, M.J.; Sugiyama, T.; Hanibuchi, T.; Shibata, A.; Ishii, K.; Liao, Y.; Oka, K. Validity of walk score® as a measure of neighborhood walkability in Japan. Prev. Med. Rep. 2018, 9, 114–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leslie, E.; Coffee, N.; Frank, L.; Owen, N.; Bauman, A.; Hugo, G. Walkability of local communities: Using geographic information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributes. Health Place 2007, 13, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hajrasouliha, A. Connecting the Dots: Campus Form, Student Perceptions, and Academic Performance. Focus 2019, 15, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Salingaros Nikos, A. Biophilia and Healing Environments; Terrapin Bright Green: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bopp, M.; Kaczynski, A.; Bs, P.W. Active Commuting Patterns at a Large, Midwestern College Campus. J. Am. Coll. Health 2011, 59, 605–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ewing, R.; Handy, S. Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. J. Urban Des. 2009, 14, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewing, R.; Handy, S.; Brownson, R.C.; Clemente, O.; Winston, E. Identifying and Measuring Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. J. Phys. Act. Health 2006, 3, S223–S240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewing, R.; Clemente, O. Measuring Urban Design: Metrics for Livable Places; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ewing, R.; Hajrasouliha, A.; Neckerman, K.M.; Purciel-Hill, M.; Greene, W.H. Streetscape Features Related to Pedestrian Activity. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2015, 36, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
The Type of Facilities | Using Frequency | Facilities are Numbered in Order of Distance from Near and Far | Diversity Value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |||
Canteen and restaurant | 21 | 21.49 | 20.02 | 18.22 | 13.17 | 11.86 | 11.86 | 3.38 | 6 |
Public teaching building | 5.06 | 36.74 | 34.73 | 28.53 | 3 | ||||
Retail store | 4.31 | 20.39 | 17.32 | 14.24 | 14.04 | 12.91 | 11.55 | 9.55 | 6 |
Gym | 2.08 | 100 | 1 | ||||||
Library | 2.03 | 100 | 1 | ||||||
Square and green space | 2 | 24.06 | 22.52 | 17.43 | 16.99 | 11.92 | 7.08 | 5 | |
Bus stop | 1.81 | 100 | 1 | ||||||
Outdoor stadium | 1.4 | 66.56 | 33.44 | 2 | |||||
Coffee shop | 1.32 | 77.52 | 22.48 | 1 | |||||
Student activity center | 1.07 | 100 | 1 | ||||||
Bank and post office | 0.98 | 54.5 | 45.5 | 2 | |||||
Administrative building | 0.86 | 100 | 1 | ||||||
Barber shop | 0.25 | 39.28 | 33.93 | 26.79 | 3 |
The Type of Facilities | Weight of Facilities | Diversity Value | Demand Distribution of Diversity | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Facility 1 | Facility 2 | Facility 3 | Facility 4 | Facility 5 | Facility 6 | |||
Canteen and restaurant | 47.54 | 6 | 10.57 | 9.85 | 8.96 | 6.48 | 2.33 | 2.33 |
Public teaching building | 11.46 | 3 | 4.21 | 3.98 | 3.27 | |||
Retail store | 9.76 | 5 | 2.2 | 1.87 | 1.54 | 1.51 | 1.39 | 1.25 |
Gym | 4.71 | 1 | 4.71 | |||||
Library | 4.6 | 1 | 4.6 | |||||
Square and green space | 4.53 | 5 | 1.17 | 1.1 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.58 | |
Bus stop | 4.1 | 1 | 4.1 | |||||
Outdoor stadium | 3.17 | 2 | 2.11 | 1.06 | ||||
Coffee shop | 2.98 | 1 | 2.98 | |||||
Student activity center | 2.42 | 1 | 2.42 | |||||
Bank and post office | 2.22 | 2 | 1.21 | 1.01 | ||||
Administrative building | 1.95 | 1 | 1.95 | |||||
Barber shop | 0.56 | 3 | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.15 | |||
Sum | 100 |
The Type of Facility | The New Campus | The Old Campus | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Full Score | Actual Score (Mean) | SD | Demand Satisfaction Rate | Full Score | Actual Score (Mean) | SD | Demand Satisfaction Rate | |
Canteen and restaurant | 47.54 | 36.26 | 11.1 | 0.76 | 43.93 | 41.13 | 5.84 | 0.94 |
Public teaching building | 11.46 | 7.53 | 3.04 | 0.66 | 13.59 | 12.52 | 1.51 | 0.92 |
Retail store | 9.76 | 8.17 | 2.13 | 0.84 | 11.37 | 11.21 | 0.46 | 0.98 |
Gym | 4.71 | 2.3 | 1.64 | 0.49 | 4.06 | 2.37 | 0.87 | 0.58 |
Library | 4.6 | 3.03 | 1.62 | 0.66 | 3.07 | 2.92 | 0.16 | 0.95 |
Square and green space | 4.53 | 4.08 | 0.73 | 0.9 | 3.71 | 3.61 | 0.17 | 0.97 |
Bus stop | 4.1 | 1.58 | 1.23 | 0.39 | 3.12 | 2.95 | 0.16 | 0.95 |
Outdoor stadium | 3.17 | 2.46 | 0.88 | 0.78 | 4.15 | 2.74 | 1.25 | 0.66 |
Coffee shop | 2.98 | 2.85 | 0.28 | 0.95 | 4.26 | 3.18 | 0.03 | 0.75 |
Student activity center | 2.42 | 1.22 | 0.68 | 0.5 | 1.61 | 1.21 | 0.32 | 0.75 |
Bank and post office | 2.22 | 2 | 0.35 | 0.9 | 1.11 | 1.1 | 0.03 | 0.99 |
Administrative building | 1.95 | 0.96 | 0.63 | 0.95 | 1.56 | 1.21 | 0.34 | 0.78 |
Barber shop | 0.56 | 0.51 | 0.09 | 0.91 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.02 | 0.98 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, Z.; Fisher, T.; Feng, G. Assessing the Rationality and Walkability of Campus Layouts. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10116. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310116
Zhang Z, Fisher T, Feng G. Assessing the Rationality and Walkability of Campus Layouts. Sustainability. 2020; 12(23):10116. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310116
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Zhehao, Thomas Fisher, and Gang Feng. 2020. "Assessing the Rationality and Walkability of Campus Layouts" Sustainability 12, no. 23: 10116. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310116