IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i4p732-d1106034.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Walk Score, Environmental Quality and Walking in a Campus Setting

Author

Listed:
  • Zhehao Zhang

    (School of Architecture, Yantai University, Yantai 264005, China)

  • Thomas Fisher

    (School of Architecture, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA)

  • Haiming Wang

    (School of Architecture and Engineering, Yantai Institute of Technology, Yantai 264003, China)

Abstract

A small amount of campus walkability research has considered facility layout and environmental quality. The aim of this paper is to use a Walk Score and Urban Design Quality to assess campus walkability and investigate the impact of a campus Walk Score, environmental quality and other streetscape features on walking activity. This paper optimizes the Walk Score method based on the frequency, variety, and distance of students’ walking to and from public facilities. A total of 157 campus street segments from the Weijin Road Campus of Tianjin University in China were selected to assess campus Walk Scores and environmental quality through the use of GIS and field audits. The effect of campus walkability and environmental features on pedestrian volume was examined by negative binomial regression. We found that Walk Score, transparency, street furniture, the number of buildings and noise level have a positive effect on walking activity, while enclosure and building basic color show a negative relationship with pedestrian volume. The results will be used to propose strategies to improve campus walkability and promote walking activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhehao Zhang & Thomas Fisher & Haiming Wang, 2023. "Walk Score, Environmental Quality and Walking in a Campus Setting," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:732-:d:1106034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/732/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/732/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ha Na Im & Chang Gyu Choi, 2020. "Measuring pedestrian volume by land use mix: Presenting a new entropy-based index by weighting walking generation units," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(7), pages 1219-1236, September.
    2. Reid Ewing & Robert Cervero, 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(3), pages 265-294.
    3. S. Hassan Ameli & Shima Hamidi & Andrea Garfinkel-Castro & Reid Ewing, 2015. "Do Better Urban Design Qualities Lead to More Walking in Salt Lake City, Utah?," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 393-410, July.
    4. Enshan Hooi & Dorina Pojani, 2020. "Urban design quality and walkability: an audit of suburban high streets in an Australian city," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 155-179, January.
    5. Zhehao Zhang & Thomas Fisher & Gang Feng, 2020. "Assessing the Rationality and Walkability of Campus Layouts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Eden McDonald-Yale & S. Jeff Birchall, 2021. "The built environment in a winter climate: improving university campus design for student wellbeing," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(5), pages 638-652, July.
    7. Gary Pivo & Jeffrey D. Fisher, 2011. "The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Investments," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 185-219, June.
    8. Bradley Bereitschaft, 2017. "Equity in Microscale Urban Design and Walkability: A Photographic Survey of Six Pittsburgh Streetscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    9. Shima Hamidi & Somayeh Moazzeni, 2019. "Examining the Relationship between Urban Design Qualities and Walking Behavior: Empirical Evidence from Dallas, TX," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, May.
    10. Sungduck Lee & Emily Talen, 2014. "Measuring Walkability: A Note on Auditing Methods," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 368-388, May.
    11. Debra K. Kellstedt & John O. Spengler & Jay E. Maddock, 2021. "Comparing Perceived and Objective Measures of Bikeability on a University Campus: A Case Study," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, June.
    12. Monika Teuber & Gorden Sudeck, 2021. "Why Do Students Walk or Cycle for Transportation? Perceived Study Environment and Psychological Determinants as Predictors of Active Transportation by University Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-25, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhehao Zhang & Haiming Wang & Lei Pang & Thomas Fisher & Shuo Yang, 2023. "Comparisons of Built Environment Correlates of Walking in Urban and Suburban Campuses: A Case Study of Tianjin, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-26, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Singleton, Patrick A. & Park, Keunhyun & Lee, Doo Hong, 2021. "Varying influences of the built environment on daily and hourly pedestrian crossing volumes at signalized intersections estimated from traffic signal controller event data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. Regine Gerike & Caroline Koszowski & Bettina Schröter & Ralph Buehler & Paul Schepers & Johannes Weber & Rico Wittwer & Peter Jones, 2021. "Built Environment Determinants of Pedestrian Activities and Their Consideration in Urban Street Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Shima Hamidi & Somayeh Moazzeni, 2019. "Examining the Relationship between Urban Design Qualities and Walking Behavior: Empirical Evidence from Dallas, TX," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Kevin Credit & Elizabeth Mack, 2019. "Place-making and performance: The impact of walkable built environments on business performance in Phoenix and Boston," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(2), pages 264-285, February.
    5. Fernando Fonseca & Escolástica Fernandes & Rui Ramos, 2022. "Walkable Cities: Using the Smart Pedestrian Net Method for Evaluating a Pedestrian Network in Guimarães, Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    6. Lingzhu Zhang & Yu Ye & Wenxin Zeng & Alain Chiaradia, 2019. "A Systematic Measurement of Street Quality through Multi-Sourced Urban Data: A Human-Oriented Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-24, May.
    7. Javier Velázquez & Javier Infante & Inmaculada Gómez & Ana Hernando & Derya Gülçin & Fernando Herráez & Víctor Rincón & Rui Alexandre Castanho, 2023. "Walkability under Climate Pressure: Application to Three UNESCO World Heritage Cities in Central Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, April.
    8. Mohammad Hamed Abdi & Ali Soltani, 2022. "Which Fabric/Scale Is Better for Transit-Oriented Urban Design: Case Studies in a Developing Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    9. Kim Dovey & Elek Pafka, 2020. "What is walkability? The urban DMA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(1), pages 93-108, January.
    10. Bojing Liao & Yifan Xu & Xiang Li & Ji Li, 2022. "Association between Campus Walkability and Affective Walking Experience, and the Mediating Role of Walking Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Zhehao Zhang & Thomas Fisher & Gang Feng, 2020. "Assessing the Rationality and Walkability of Campus Layouts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-21, December.
    12. Roei Yosifof & Dafna Fisher-Gewirtzman, 2024. "Hybrid quantitative mesoscale analyses for simulating pedestrians’ visual perceptions: Comparison of three New York City streets," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 51(1), pages 140-156, January.
    13. Todor Stojanovski, 2019. "Urban Form and Mobility Choices: Informing about Sustainable Travel Alternatives, Carbon Emissions and Energy Use from Transportation in Swedish Neighbourhoods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-28, January.
    14. Young-Jae Kim & Ayoung Woo, 2016. "What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-20, April.
    15. Trichês Lucchesi, Shanna & Larranaga, Ana Margarita & Bettella Cybis, Helena Beatriz & Abreu e Silva, João António de & Arellana, Julian Alberto, 2021. "Are people willing to pay more to live in a walking environment? A multigroup analysis of the impact of walkability on real estate values and their moderation effects in two Global South cities," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    16. Amir Hajrasouliha & Li Yin, 2015. "The impact of street network connectivity on pedestrian volume," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(13), pages 2483-2497, October.
    17. Elizabeth A. Mack & Emily Talen & Julia Koschinsky, 2017. "Walkable Art: An Empirical Investigation of Arts-Related Businesses and Walkable Neighborhoods," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 31(2), pages 149-163, May.
    18. Zhehao Zhang & Haiming Wang & Lei Pang & Thomas Fisher & Shuo Yang, 2023. "Comparisons of Built Environment Correlates of Walking in Urban and Suburban Campuses: A Case Study of Tianjin, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-26, October.
    19. Gustavo de Siqueira & Ahmad Adeel & Petrit Pasha & Amal Al Balushi & Syyed Adnan Raheel Shah, 2021. "Sustainable Transportation and Policy Development: A Study for Impact Analysis of Mobility Patterns and Neighborhood Assessment of Walking Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    20. Antonio Zumelzu & Mariana Estrada & Marta Moya & Jairo Troppa, 2022. "Experiencing Public Spaces in Southern Chile: Analysing the Effects of the Built Environment on Walking Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-20, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:732-:d:1106034. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.