IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v57y2020i1p93-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is walkability? The urban DMA

Author

Listed:
  • Kim Dovey

    (University of Melbourne, Australia)

  • Elek Pafka

    (University of Melbourne, Australia)

Abstract

The concept of urban ‘walkability’ has come to occupy a key role at the nexus of a series of multidisciplinary fields connecting urban design and planning to broader issues of public health, climate change, economic productivity and social equity. Yet the concept of walkability itself remains elusive – difficult to define or operationalise. Density, functional mix and access networks are well-recognised as key factors: density concentrates more people and places within walkable distances; functional mix produces a greater range of walkable destinations; and access networks mediate flows of traffic between them. This complex synergy of density, mix and access – herein called the urban DMA – largely stems from the work of Jacobs. With an approach based in assemblage thinking we show that each of these factors is multiple and problematic to define or measure. Any reduction to a singular index of morphological properties can involve a misrecognition of how cities work. We argue that walkability is a complex and somewhat nebulous set of capacities embodied in any urban morphology, and that it should not be conflated with nor derived from actual levels of walking.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim Dovey & Elek Pafka, 2020. "What is walkability? The urban DMA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(1), pages 93-108, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:57:y:2020:i:1:p:93-108
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098018819727
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098018819727
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098018819727?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. Michael Storper & Anthony J. Venables, 2004. "Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 351-370, August.
    2. Elek Pafka & Kim Dovey, 2017. "Permeability and interface catchment: measuring and mapping walkable access," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 150-162, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Mattias Kärrholm & Maria Johansson & David Lindelöw & Inês A. Ferreira, 2017. "Interseriality and Different Sorts of Walking: Suggestions for a Relational Approach to Urban Walking," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 20-35, January.
    5. Kim Dovey & Elek Pafka, 2017. "What is functional mix? An assemblage approach," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 249-267, April.
    6. 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. Scoppa, Martin & Bawazir, Khawla & Alawadi, Khaled, 2019. "Straddling boundaries in superblock cities. Assessing local and global network connectivity using cases from Abu Dhabi, UAE," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 770-782.
    2. Ayse Ozbil & Tugce Gurleyen & Demet Yesiltepe & Ezgi Zunbuloglu, 2019. "Comparative Associations of Street Network Design, Streetscape Attributes and Land-Use Characteristics on Pedestrian Flows in Peripheral Neighbourhoods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-23, May.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Muhammad Zaheer Khan & Muhammad Asif Khan & Muhammad Muzzamil Hussain Khattak & Muhammad Faisal Habib & Muhammad Shah Zeb, 2025. "The effect of locating public transit stations on their walking accessibility using an actual street network," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 247-266, March.
    7. Nastaran Peimani & Hesam Kamalipour, 2020. "Access and Forms of Urbanity in Public Space: Transit Urban Design Beyond the Global North," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Elek Pafka & Kim Dovey & Gideon DPA Aschwanden, 2020. "Limits of space syntax for urban design: Axiality, scale and sinuosity," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(3), pages 508-522, March.
    9. Rao, Fujie & Pafka, Elek, 2021. "Shopping morphologies of urban transit station areas: A comparative study of central city station catchments in Toronto, San Francisco, and Melbourne," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. Gerhard JB Bruyns & Christopher D Higgins & Darren H Nel, 2021. "Urban volumetrics: From vertical to volumetric urbanisation and its extensions to empirical morphological analysis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(5), pages 922-940, April.
    11. Marta Gancarczyk, 2010. "Model schyłku i odrodzenia klastrów," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 3, pages 1-21.
    12. Mehzabin Tuli, Farzana & Mitra, Suman & Crews, Mariah B., 2021. "Factors influencing the usage of shared E-scooters in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 164-185.
    13. Likun Wu & Wei Lang & Tingting Chen, 2024. "Deciphering Urban Land Use Patterns in the Shenzhen–Dongguan Cross-Boundary Region Based on Multisource Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    14. Shuai Shi & Kathy Pain, 2020. "Investigating China’s Mid-Yangtze River economic growth region using a spatial network growth model," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(14), pages 2973-2993, November.
    15. Jing Jing, 2022. "Seeing Streetscapes as Social Infrastructure: A Paradigmatic Case Study of Hornsbergs Strand, Stockholm," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 510-522.
    16. 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.
    17. John Stanley & Janet Stanley, 2023. "Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-18, August.
    18. Marie Geraldine Herrmann-Lunecke & Cristhian Figueroa-Martínez & Francisca Parra Huerta & Rodrigo Mora, 2022. "The Disabling City: Older Persons Walking in Central Neighbourhoods of Santiago de Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-19, September.
    19. Pauly, Stefan & Stipanicic, Fernando, 2021. "The creation and diffusion of knowledge: Evidence from the Jet Age," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) 2112, CEPREMAP.
    20. Li, Jingjing & Kim, Changjoo & Sang, Sunhee, 2018. "Exploring impacts of land use characteristics in residential neighborhood and activity space on non-work travel behaviors," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 141-147.

    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:urbstu:v:57:y:2020:i:1:p:93-108. 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: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    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.