IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v48y2021i8p2418-2435.html

Walkability scoring: Why and how does a three-dimensional pedestrian network matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Jianting Zhao
  • Guibo Sun
  • Chris Webster

Abstract

Previous walkability scoring systems are all based on road networks, even though roads are not designed for pedestrians. To calculate an accurate walking score, we need pedestrian network data. This is especially the case in cities such as Hong Kong, where pedestrians are separated from vehicles by footbridges, underpasses or surface sidewalks. In this paper, we investigate why and how a three-dimensional pedestrian network makes a difference in walkability scoring, using Hong Kong as a case city. We developed a walkability scoring system based on networks and amenities, using multiple open-source programming platforms and languages. Separately, we calculated walkability scores (on a scale of 0–100) using the three-dimensional pedestrian network and road network of the city, comparing the differences between the two. A GIS raster analysis was conducted to extract walkability scoring differences from the two walkability surfaces, followed by a univariate linear model to examine how the scores were underestimated if without using the three-dimensional pedestrian network. Results show that streets were considered twice as walkable if rated by pedestrian network rather than road network. Walkability scores were 92% higher on average. The fitted model shows that the mean score underestimations were significantly different for different three-dimensional network elements. Surface sidewalks had an average underestimation of 33.75 (p 

Suggested Citation

  • Jianting Zhao & Guibo Sun & Chris Webster, 2021. "Walkability scoring: Why and how does a three-dimensional pedestrian network matter?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(8), pages 2418-2435, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:48:y:2021:i:8:p:2418-2435
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808320977871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808320977871
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808320977871?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Zacharias, 2013. "The Central-Mid-levels Escalator as Urban Regenerator in Hong Kong," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 583-593, November.
    2. Kim Dovey & Elek Pafka, 2020. "What is walkability? The urban DMA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(1), pages 93-108, January.
    3. 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.
    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. Shiwei Yu & Jianfei Chen & Yanyang Li & Xiaolu Zhou, 2025. "Exploring the impact of subway station areas on cold region communities from a micro perspective: built environment and travel mode selection," Transportation, Springer, vol. 52(6), pages 2311-2354, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Jônatas Augusto Manzolli & André Oliveira & Miguel de Castro Neto, 2021. "Evaluating Walkability through a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach: A Lisbon Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, January.
    3. 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.
    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. John Landis & Vincent J. Reina, 2021. "Do Restrictive Land Use Regulations Make Housing More Expensive Everywhere?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 35(4), pages 305-324, November.
    6. Chang-Deok Kang, 2019. "Effects of spatial access to neighborhood land-use density on housing prices: Evidence from a multilevel hedonic analysis in Seoul, South Korea," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(4), pages 603-625, May.
    7. Liang Peng, 2020. "Benchmarking Local Commercial Real Estate Returns: Statistics Meets Economics," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1004-1029, December.
    8. Eun Jung Kim & Hyunjung Kim, 2020. "Neighborhood Walkability and Housing Prices: A Correlation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Kevin Credit & Irene Farah & Emily Talen & Luc Anselin & Hassan Ghomrawi, 2026. "The Walkable Accessibility Score (WAS): A spatially granular open-source measure of walkability for the continental US from 1997 to 2019," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 53(3), pages 494-506, March.
    10. Hamidi, Shima & Zandiatashbar, Ahoura & Bonakdar, Ahmad, 2019. "The relationship between regional compactness and regional innovation capacity (RIC): Empirical evidence from a national study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 394-402.
    11. Kok, Nils & Jennen, Maarten, 2012. "The impact of energy labels and accessibility on office rents," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 489-497.
    12. Benassai-Dalmau, Robert & Borge-Holthoefer, Javier & Solé-Ribalta, Albert, 2025. "Exploring pedestrian permeability in urban sidewalk networks," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    13. Zhehao Zhang & Thomas Fisher & Gang Feng, 2020. "Assessing the Rationality and Walkability of Campus Layouts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-21, December.
    14. Mariya Letdin & G. Stacy Sirmans & Greg T. Smersh & Tingyu Zhou, 2025. "The Role of Tenant Characteristics in Retail Cap Rate Variation," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 429-456, April.
    15. Sharon E. Taverno Ross & Morgan N. Clennin & Marsha Dowda & Natalie Colabianchi & Russell R. Pate, 2018. "Stepping It Up: Walking Behaviors in Children Transitioning from 5th to 7th Grade," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-9, February.
    16. Haruka Kato & Atsushi Takizawa, 2021. "Which Residential Clusters of Walkability Affect Future Population from the Perspective of Real Estate Prices in the Osaka Metropolitan Area?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, December.
    17. Seieun Kim & Aura Lydia Riswanto & Angellie Williady & Reza Asriandi Ekaputra & Hak-Seon Kim, 2025. "A geospatial and big data exploration of tourism destinations: A case study of Busan, Republic of Korea," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 35(1), pages 1-17, December.
    18. Hee Jin Yang & Jihoon Song & Mack Joong Choi, 2016. "Measuring the Externality Effects of Commercial Land Use on Residential Land Value: A Case Study of Seoul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-15, April.
    19. Ge Zhang & Wenwen Zhang & Subhrajit Guhathakurta & Nisha Botchwey, 2019. "Development of a flow-based planning support system based on open data for the City of Atlanta," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(2), pages 207-224, February.
    20. Jiayi Liu & Yanbin Li & Yanhan Xu & Castiel Chen Zhuang & Yang Hu & Yue Yu, 2024. "Impacts of Built Environment on Urban Vitality in Cultural Districts: A Case Study of Haikou and Suzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-26, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:envirb:v:48:y:2021:i:8:p:2418-2435. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.