IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v48y2021i8p2481-2496.html

Experimental analysis of walkability evaluation using virtual reality application

Author

Listed:
  • Kazuki Nakamura

Abstract

Excessive motorisation, resulting from the vicious cycle of car-oriented road development and car-reliant land development, significantly deteriorates walking environments, causing traffic safety problems, damaging city-centre vitality, and hindering sustainable mobility. Many Asian cities face these issues, and as a result, it is often difficult for their street users to experience higher level walking needs, such as comfort and attractiveness, in their daily walking environments. Without such experiences, street users may have difficulty in finding high quality street environments. Visualisation technologies allowing street users to virtually experience more diverse walking needs may assist them in recognising new visions of walkable cities. Accordingly, this study conducts an experimental analysis of walkability evaluations by applying virtual reality tools for evaluating various streets to answer the following research questions: (1) How are street environments related to walking perceptions and behaviours? (2) Is virtual reality visualisation advantageous for revealing these relationships? The research conducted an experiment on virtual reality walkability evaluation that examined perception-based evaluations of street environments in car-reliant large cities of Japan, Thailand, and Australia. The evaluation mechanism of walkability was analysed based on walking needs, taking into account the impact of the virtual reality tools. The results demonstrate that virtual reality evaluation of internationally diverse street environments reflects the sensitivity of walking willingness to the satisfaction of hierarchical walking needs. Further, the impact of virtual reality use was observed in the greater engagement with virtual environments, which is related to higher walking willingness. The results have major implications for planning and design practices, suggesting the potential of virtual reality-based evaluation systems as useful tools for creating and implementing new visions of walkable cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Kazuki Nakamura, 2021. "Experimental analysis of walkability evaluation using virtual reality application," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(8), pages 2481-2496, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:48:y:2021:i:8:p:2481-2496
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808320980747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808320980747
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808320980747?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. Dustin T. Duncan & Julie Méline & Yan Kestens & Kristen Day & Brian Elbel & Leonardo Trasande & Basile Chaix, 2016. "Walk Score, Transportation Mode Choice, and Walking Among French Adults: A GPS, Accelerometer, and Mobility Survey Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 193-208.
    3. Olaf Schroth & Ellen Pond & Cam Campbell & Petr Cizek & Stephen Bohus & Stephen R. J. Sheppard, 2011. "Tool or Toy? Virtual Globes in Landscape Planning," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    5. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    6. Hess, Stephane & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2013. "Linking response quality to survey engagement: A combined random scale and latent variable approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Danny Campbell & Seda Erdem, 2015. "Position Bias in Best-worst Scaling Surveys: A Case Study on Trust in Institutions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 526-545.
    8. Dustin T. Duncan & Jared Aldstadt & John Whalen & Steven J. Melly & Steven L. Gortmaker, 2011. "Validation of Walk Score ® for Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An Analysis of Four US Metropolitan Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-20, November.
    9. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 193-208.
    2. Di Fang & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Grant H. West & Claudia Bazzani & Wei Yang & Benjamin C. Lok & Charles E. Levy & Heather A. Snell, 2021. "On the Use of Virtual Reality in Mitigating Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 142-161, January.
    3. Xiaodong Dong & Junling Zhao & Ziyin Zhao & Can Su & Xiaochen Ma, 2026. "Reducing Primary Healthcare Bypass Behaviour: A Discrete Choice Experiment Study Exploring the Preferences for Primary Eye Care Services in Rural Xinjiang," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 19(2), pages 313-328, March.
    4. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2014. "Valuation framing and attribute scope variation in a choice experiment to asses the impacts of changing land use from agriculture to mining," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165888, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    6. Mol, Jantsje M., 2019. "Goggles in the lab: Economic experiments in immersive virtual environments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 155-164.
    7. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 17-31.
    8. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    9. Kei Kabaya & Kayo Tajima & Daisuke Ichinose & Michiko Asano, 2025. "Do different visual presentation formats encourage different choice behaviors? discrete choice experiment on urban park landscapes," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 27(1), pages 23-41, January.
    10. Bradley Bereitschaft, 2023. "The changing ethno-racial profile of ‘very walkable’ urban neighbourhoods in the US (2010–2020): Are minorities under-represented?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(4), pages 638-654, March.
    11. Zhang, Zhehao & Wang, Haiming & Fisher, Thomas, 2024. "The development, validation, and application of the campus walk score measurement system," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 40-54.
    12. Barbara Buljat, 2022. "Immersive Technologies Affecting Psychological Factors that Lead to Voluntary Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Transdisciplinary Survey," GREDEG Working Papers 2022-15, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    13. Wei Zhu & Shaoyu Guo & Jinhua Zhao, 2021. "Planning participants’ preferential differences under immersive virtual reality and conventional representations: An experiment of street renewal," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(7), pages 1755-1769, September.
    14. Parsons, George & Yan, Lingxiao, 2021. "Anchoring on visual cues in a stated preference survey: The case of siting offshore wind power projects," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    15. Nguyen, Manh-Hung & Nguyen, Thi Lan Anh & Nguyen, Tuan & Reynaud, Arnaud & Simioni, Michel & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Economic analysis of choices among differing measures to manage coastal erosion in Hoi An (a UNESCO World Heritage Site)," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 529-543.
    16. Fredrik Carlsson, 2010. "Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 167-177, June.
    17. Doll, Claire A. & Burton, Michael P. & Pannell, David J. & Rollins, Curtis L., 2023. "Are greenspaces too green? Landscape preferences and water use in urban parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    18. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2012. "Testing benefit transfer of reef protection values between local case studies: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 60-69.
    19. Eppink, Florian V. & Hanley, Nick & Tucker, Steven, 2019. "How Best to Present Complex Ecosystem Information in Stated Preference Studies?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 20-25.
    20. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    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:2481-2496. 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.