IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i22p12434-d676452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Stated Preference Survey for Evaluating Young Pedestrians’ Preferences on Walkways

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Grazia Bellizzi

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy)

  • Carmen Forciniti

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy)

  • Gabriella Mazzulla

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy)

Abstract

For promoting pedestrian mobility, the quality levels of pedestrian paths should be increased. Many researchers suggest methodologies for determining the pedestrian level of service. Among these, some studies consider both paths’ physical characteristics and users’ perception about the walkways. Investigating users’ perceptions represents a good strategy for implementing interventions aimed at increasing the quality of service. The aim is recording pedestrians’ perceptions about the characteristics of the path and detecting the choices they would make in a hypothetical scenario. This work proposes the design of a Stated Preferences survey and the analysis of the preliminary results. A questionnaire was sent out to a sample of 240 pedestrians, prevalently students, about a walkway located in the University Campus of Rende (Italy). The collected data were analyzed by means of a discrete choice model for assessing the importance assigned by pedestrians to each aspect included in the analysis. The results showed that the environment can be considered as the most important aspect for young pedestrians, while the width of the path is not significant. The outcomes also highlighted the aspects it is necessary to change in order to make pedestrian paths increasingly attractive and to encourage users towards active mobility.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Grazia Bellizzi & Carmen Forciniti & Gabriella Mazzulla, 2021. "A Stated Preference Survey for Evaluating Young Pedestrians’ Preferences on Walkways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-12, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12434-:d:676452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12434/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12434/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zohreh Asadi-Shekari & Mehdi Moeinaddini & Muhammad Zaly Shah, 2013. "Non-motorised Level of Service: Addressing Challenges in Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 166-194, March.
    2. Kelly, C.E. & Tight, M.R. & Hodgson, F.C. & Page, M.W., 2011. "A comparison of three methods for assessing the walkability of the pedestrian environment," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 1500-1508.
    3. Arlie Adkins & Jennifer Dill & Gretchen Luhr & Margaret Neal, 2012. "Unpacking Walkability: Testing the Influence of Urban Design Features on Perceptions of Walking Environment Attractiveness," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 499-510.
    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. Bruno Jardim & Miguel de Castro Neto, 2022. "Walkability Indicators in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-24, September.
    2. Natalia Distefano & Salvatore Leonardi & Nilda Georgina Liotta, 2023. "Walking for Sustainable Cities: Factors Affecting Users’ Willingness to Walk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, March.

    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. Dena Kasraian & Sneha Adhikari & David Kossowsky & Michael Luubert & G Brent Hall & Jason Hawkins & Khandker Nurul Habib & Matthew J Roorda, 2021. "Evaluating pedestrian perceptions of street design with a 3D stated preference survey," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(7), pages 1787-1805, September.
    2. Ahmad Adeel & Bruno Notteboom & Ansar Yasar & Kris Scheerlinck & Jeroen Stevens, 2021. "Sustainable Streetscape and Built Environment Designs around BRT Stations: A Stated Choice Experiment Using 3D Visualizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Sheila Ferrer & Tomás Ruiz, 2017. "Comparison on travel scheduling between driving and walking trips by habitual car users," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 27-48, January.
    4. Mona Jabbari & Fernando Fonseca & Rui Ramos, 2018. "Combining multi-criteria and space syntax analysis to assess a pedestrian network: the case of Oporto," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 23-41, January.
    5. Tufail Ahmed & Mehdi Moeinaddini & Meshal Almoshaogeh & Arshad Jamal & Imran Nawaz & Fawaz Alharbi, 2021. "A New Pedestrian Crossing Level of Service (PCLOS) Method for Promoting Safe Pedestrian Crossing in Urban Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-18, August.
    6. Ana Margarita Larranaga & Julián Arellana & Luis Ignacio Rizzi & Orlando Strambi & Helena Beatriz Bettella Cybis, 2019. "Using best–worst scaling to identify barriers to walkability: a study of Porto Alegre, Brazil," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2347-2379, December.
    7. Maria Johansson & Catharina Sternudd & Mattias Kärrholm, 2016. "Perceived urban design qualities and affective experiences of walking," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 256-275, April.
    8. Alvaro Rodriguez-Valencia & Jose Agustin Vallejo-Borda & German A. Barrero & Hernan Alberto Ortiz-Ramirez, 2022. "Towards an enriched framework of service evaluation for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure: acknowledging the power of users’ perceptions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 791-814, June.
    9. Yu, Haitao & Peng, Zhong-Ren, 2019. "Exploring the spatial variation of ridesourcing demand and its relationship to built environment and socioeconomic factors with the geographically weighted Poisson regression," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 147-163.
    10. Vanky, Anthony & Courtney, Theodore & Verma, Santosh & Ratti, Carlo, 2016. "One to Many: Opportunities to Understanding Collective Behaviors in Urban Environments Through Individual's Passively-Collected Locative Data," SocArXiv f7mpd, Center for Open Science.
    11. Zhu, Siying & Zhu, Feng, 2019. "Cycling comfort evaluation with instrumented probe bicycle," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 217-231.
    12. Eggimann, Sven, 2022. "Expanding urban green space with superblocks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Battista, Geoffrey A. & Manaugh, Kevin, 2018. "Stores and mores: Toward socializing walkability," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 53-60.
    14. Andreas Nikiforiadis & Socrates Basbas & Foteini Mikiki & Aikaterini Oikonomou & Efrosyni Polymeroudi, 2021. "Pedestrians-Cyclists Shared Spaces Level of Service: Comparison of Methodologies and Critical Discussion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, January.
    15. Mariano Gallo & Mario Marinelli, 2020. "Sustainable Mobility: A Review of Possible Actions and Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-39, September.
    16. Massingue, Suzanna Allen & Oviedo, Daniel, 2021. "Walkability and the Right to the city: A snapshot critique of pedestrian space in Maputo, Mozambique," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    17. Soteropoulos, Aggelos & Mitteregger, Mathias & Berger, Martin & Zwirchmayr, Jakob, 2020. "Automated drivability: Toward an assessment of the spatial deployment of level 4 automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 64-84.
    18. Tarek Al Shammas & Francisco Escobar, 2019. "Comfort and Time-Based Walkability Index Design: A GIS-Based Proposal," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-22, August.
    19. Calvin P Tribby & Harvey J Miller & Barbara B Brown & Carol M Werner & Ken R Smith, 2017. "Analyzing walking route choice through built environments using random forests and discrete choice techniques," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 44(6), pages 1145-1167, November.
    20. Bogyeong Lee & Sungjoo Hwang & Hyunsoo Kim, 2021. "The Feasibility of Information-Entropy-Based Behavioral Analysis for Detecting Environmental Barriers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, November.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12434-:d:676452. 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.