IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/transr/v38y2018i4p524-550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meta-analysis of the relationships between space syntax measures and pedestrian movement

Author

Listed:
  • Samia Sharmin
  • Md. Kamruzzaman

Abstract

Ample research has been conducted investigating the built environment impacts on pedestrian movement (PM). A clear division is also evident in the literature on this topic: one group tends to use geographic measures (metric distance) of the environment to explain pedestrian behaviour; the other group uses syntactic measures (visual distance). Many review articles have been published on the former. However, relatively little is known about the effect size (ES), directions, and consistency of syntactic measures in explaining PM. This paper fills this gap through a meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies on this topic spanning over 1975–2016, and answers the following five research questions: (a) What are the different measures used in the space syntax literature to explain PM?; (b) What are the magnitudes and directions of associations between space syntax measures and PM?; (c) Which space syntax measure has a more consistent relationship with PM?; (d) To what extent do the explanatory powers of different measures vary between their derivation methods?; and (e) What are the likely causes of variations of the reported results in prior studies? This research examined four syntactic measures (integration, connectivity, choice, and control) in a random effect model with 95% confidence interval (CI). The choice and integration measures were further investigated based on their operational approaches (topological, angular and metric). Results show that integration (ES = 0.206, 95% CI = 0.173–0.238, p < 0.001), choice (ES = 0.481, 95% CI = 0.391–0.561, p < 0.001), and connectivity (ES = 0.305, 95% CI = −0.225–0.696, p = 0.257) measures positively influence PM with choice being the strongest predictor. Both connectivity and control (ES = −0.001, 95% CI = −0.117–0.115, p = 0.990) were found to have a statistically insignificant impact. The choice and integration measures show stronger effects when derived using the angular approach (ES = 0.493 for choice, and ES = 0.502 for integration) compared to topological approach (ES = 0.374 for choice, and ES = 0.124 for integration). However, the reported results of all measures are highly heterogeneous, perhaps due to the differences in research design. The significance, magnitude, and consistency of integration and choice measures justify their relevance in built environment interventions to promote PM.

Suggested Citation

  • Samia Sharmin & Md. Kamruzzaman, 2018. "Meta-analysis of the relationships between space syntax measures and pedestrian movement," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 524-550, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:transr:v:38:y:2018:i:4:p:524-550
    DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2017.1365101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01441647.2017.1365101
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01441647.2017.1365101?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dorsa Alipour & Hussein Dia, 2023. "A Systematic Review of the Role of Land Use, Transport, and Energy-Environment Integration in Shaping Sustainable Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    2. Lingjun Tang & Yu Lin & Sijia Li & Sheng Li & Jingyi Li & Fu Ren & Chao Wu, 2018. "Exploring the Influence of Urban Form on Urban Vibrancy in Shenzhen Based on Mobile Phone Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    3. Aston, Laura & Currie, Graham & Kamruzzaman, Md. & Delbosc, Alexa & Teller, David, 2020. "Study design impacts on built environment and transit use research," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. Xuefeng Ma & Jiaxin Tan & Jiekuan Zhang, 2022. "Spatial–Temporal Correlation between the Tourist Hotel Industry and Town Spatial Morphology: The Case of Phoenix Ancient Town, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Yeh, Anthony Gar-On & Zhong, Teng, 2021. "Polygonization method for automatic generation of indoor and outdoor pedestrian navigation path for smart city," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Lingzhu Zhang & Alain JF Chiaradia, 2022. "Walking in the cities without ground, how 3d complex network volumetrics improve analysis," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(7), pages 1857-1874, September.
    7. Shatu, Farjana & Yigitcanlar, Tan & Bunker, Jonathan, 2019. "Shortest path distance vs. least directional change: Empirical testing of space syntax and geographic theories concerning pedestrian route choice behaviour," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 37-52.
    8. Renata Walczak & Krzysztof Koszewski & Robert Olszewski & Krzysztof Ejsmont & Anikó Kálmán, 2023. "Acceptance of IoT Edge-Computing-Based Sensors in Smart Cities for Universal Design Purposes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, January.
    9. Shatu, Farjana & Yigitcanlar, Tan & Bunker, Jonathan, 2019. "Objective vs. subjective measures of street environments in pedestrian route choice behaviour: Discrepancy and correlates of non-concordance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-23.
    10. Kimon Krenz & Ashley Dhanani & Rosemary R. C. McEachan & Kuldeep Sohal & John Wright & Laura Vaughan, 2023. "Linking the Urban Environment and Health: An Innovative Methodology for Measuring Individual-Level Environmental Exposures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-22, January.
    11. Mona Jabbari & Fernando Fonseca & Rui Ramos, 2021. "Accessibility and Connectivity Criteria for Assessing Walkability: An Application in Qazvin, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    12. Lamprecht Mariusz, 2022. "Space syntax as a socio-economic approach: a review of potentials in the polish context," Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development, Sciendo, vol. 26(1), pages 5-14, January.
    13. Isabelle Soares & Claudia Yamu & Gerd Weitkamp, 2020. "The Relationship between the Spatial Configuration and the Fourth Sustainable Dimension Creativity in University Campuses: The Case Study of Zernike Campus, Groningen, The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, November.
    14. Nir Kaplan & Itzhak Omer, 2022. "Multiscale Accessibility—A New Perspective of Space Structuration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    15. Avital Angel & Achituv Cohen & Sagi Dalyot & Pnina Plaut, 2023. "Impact of COVID-19 policies on pedestrian traffic and walking patterns," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(5), pages 1178-1193, June.
    16. Sugie Lee & Chisun Yoo & Kyung Wook Seo, 2020. "Determinant Factors of Pedestrian Volume in Different Land-Use Zones: Combining Space Syntax Metrics with GIS-Based Built-Environment Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    17. Xin Li & Yongsheng Qian & Junwei Zeng & Xuting Wei & Xiaoping Guang, 2021. "The Influence of Strip-City Street Network Structure on Spatial Vitality: Case Studies in Lanzhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, October.
    18. Sharmin, Samia & Kamruzzaman, Md. & Haque, Md Mazharul, 2020. "The impact of topological properties of built environment on children independent mobility: A comparative study between discretionary vs. nondiscretionary trips in Dhaka," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).

    More about this item

    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:taf:transr:v:38:y:2018:i:4:p:524-550. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/TTRV20 .

    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.