The Impact of Urban Design on Utilitarian and Leisure Walking—The Relative Influence of Street Network Connectivity and Streetscape Features

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article addresses a meaningful area for research and future methods. Its procedural aspects and the characteristics of the built environment in this context are related to urban design, spatial perception, a sense of security in space, and health.

The writers examine two parameters that encourage pedestrian activity and compare them. One parameter is an urban parameter: urban connectivity. To modify this parameter, there is a need for urban changes before connecting roads and creating new pathways. This parameter is challenging to handle and improve. In contrast, other parameters found in the literature are related to architecture and user experience, such as transparency, facades, and the like. These parameters are easier to change as they are at the structural or street level. The authors seek to compare these parameters and examine which one has a greater impact on walkability in space. They do this using quantitative measures, which ultimately indicate the walkability and its quality. The conclusions of the article show that indeed urban connectivity is the central measure for walkability, but the user experience is indeed related to the walking experience and can therefore be improved. Since this is a quantitative research, it reinforces theoretical findings, and moreover, it allows improving walkability without changing the road system in the city, a change that is difficult to implement statutorily due to the various costs associated with the spaces. Due to these conclusions and the methodology adopted in the research, I support the publication of the article. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

The article is in many ways quite interesting. But I have a main concern about the central object of the study: the walking trips. The trips studies are not the actual trips, but trips calculated based on the origin, the destination and the purpose. Based on this, it can not be a surprise that connectivity is found to be a decisive factor. You touch briefly on this in the discussion, but it could be much more developed. Mapping actual trips takes time, but it might give some interesting results. Try to look into the works of Jan Gehl (which you refer to in the article). Gehl point out a number of things making routes attractive - but elements that are quite difficult to map without actual physical presence.

I have had a number of students comparing calculated trips with actual trips, finding major differences, and interviewing the travelling people, making them explaining their choice of route.  

A number of trips in actual life are trips with several purposes. On the way back from work it is common to pick up kids and shop. How is this type of trips handled in your research?? This could be reflected in the discussion. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper examines the association between street connectivity, streetscape characteristics and the number of walking trips on street segments. The study applies Ewing and Handy's assessment of streetscapes but the authors provide no adequate explanation for using this perspective. There is no literature review provided of the extensive work that has been done to measure streetscape features that enhance attractiveness. The operationalisation of the measures and the structure of the regression analyses are fatally flawed. The dependent variable is the number of walking trips on a street segment. However, the authors have no objective data of routes that people take between origin and destination. Instead the authors have assumed walking route based on the shortest distance. (see section Walking Trips). If the assumption that the walking route measure is computed on is correct - then the authors hypothesis that people make walking choices based not only on connectivity (distance) but also on streetscape cannot be properly examined in the data. Also, by using the street segment as the unit of analysis the authors are not looking a walking behaviour per se, they are examining the propensity for foot traffic on a particular type of street segment. 

There are no clear rationales provided for measurement decisions such as the selection of a 500m buffer. Sensitivity tests using buffers at different distances should be conducted. The authors state that the VIF is less than 10. Ten is still very high and given the behavior of some of the coefficients in the regression models it is likely that there is multicollinearity in the models. There is certainly overlap in the independent variables and the concepts being measured. Far more thought is required to process a model that succinctly captures streetscape features and connectivity. I would also suggest that the authors think more about topography which is a key element of walkability along with measures of disorder or safety which are also found to be highly associated with walk routes. 

The discussion is repetitive and does not demonstrate an indepth understanding of the analyses or their interpretation. The literature review lacked a critical review of the contemporary literature on walkability and in particular on the difference between utalitarian and leisure trips. The absence of this literature was also notable in the discussion. The authors overstate their findings in the discussion. From the analysis presented in this paper there is no way to accurately say anything about choice of street segment or walking route because walking trips is NOT an objective measure but rather an assumed route based on SHORTEST DISTANCE not streetscape or attractiveness. 

Moderate editing is required throughout to ensure that the English translation is grammatically correct. Examples of awkward phrasing paragraph 2 page 1; paragraph 3 page 2. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Here are some specific revision opinions:

1. Expand the introduction to better frame the research within the broader context of urban design and walkability studies.

2. Provide more details on the selection process for the 740 street segments studied and justify this choice.

3. Elaborate on the methods of data collection, particularly the survey process, and the criteria for including participants' responses.

4. Expand on how streetscape features were quantified and the rationale behind the chosen parameters.

5. Elaborate on the implications of your findings in the context of urban planning and policy.

6. Discuss the limitations of your methodology and the generalizability of results.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Thanks for revising the manuscript as per reviewers' comments. The revisions are almost appropriate and the revised manuscript may be published in the journal. 

English language is almost fine.

Reviewer 6 Report

The abstract effectively introduces the central theme of the research, highlighting the interplay between road network connectivity and streetscape features in influencing pedestrian behavior in urban environments. However, it could be enhanced by providing more specific details about the research methodology and key findings. A more precise indication of the research questions addressed and the main conclusions drawn would improve the abstract's effectiveness in conveying the significance of the study.

The paper effectively introduces the importance of understanding the factors influencing pedestrian behavior in urban environments. However, it would benefit from a more structured summary of the research methodology and design at the outset, providing readers with a clear roadmap of the study's approach and objectives. Readers can better appreciate the study's contributions by outlining the methods used to measure connectivity and streetscape characteristics and their respective impacts on walking behavior.

Figure 2 appears unnecessary for the main text and could be excluded to streamline the paper. If the authors choose to retain it, they should ensure that the images are either created by them or properly cited from external sources to adhere to ethical standards.

Figures 5, 6, and 7 could be consolidated into one high-quality figure to improve clarity and reduce redundancy. Enhancing the visual presentation of critical findings would aid readers in interpreting the results more effectively.

The discussion section should not only summarize the findings but also explore the implications of the research for urban design and planning processes. Considering the increasing adoption of automated and AI-supported solutions in urban planning, the paper should discuss the potential for automation in analyzing street network connectivity and streetscape features. Addressing how such advancements could enhance the design and planning processes globally would add depth to the discussion and highlight avenues for future research and implementation.

In conclusion, the paper provides valuable insights into the influence of urban design on pedestrian behavior, particularly in Santarém, Portugal. By improving the abstract's clarity, enhancing the presentation of research methods, and discussing the potential for automation in urban planning processes, the paper could further contribute to the understanding and advancing urban design principles.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I commend the authors for responding to the feedback thoroughly. 

Some minor grammatical issues (very few, may be typographical errors) that can be fixed during the editing process.

Reviewer 4 Report

can be accepted