Impact of Neighborhood Environment on Pedestrian Route Selection among Elementary Schoolchildren in Korea
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
2.1. Urban Structure and Travel Behavior
2.2. Travel Behavior and Route Selection
2.2.1. Important Factors in Route Selection
2.2.2. Factors Influencing the Selection of Non-Shortest Route
3. Data and Methodology
3.1. Study Sites
3.2. Spatial Structure Characteristics of Selected Study Sites
3.3. Survey Data
4. Results
4.1. Survey Results
4.2. Respondent Satisfaction and Route Choice
4.3. Factors Influencing Route Selection
4.4. Analysis of Individual Areas
4.5. Soong-gok Elementary School
4.6. Jam-sil Elementary School
4.7. Sin-ga Elementary School
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Goeverden, C.; Boer, D. Ed School travel behaviour in the Netherlands and Flanders. Transp. Policy 2013, 26, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korea Transport Institute. 77% of Pedestrian Traffic Deaths in Children Occur in Residential Areas. 2018. Available online: https://www.koti.re.kr/index.do (accessed on 6 February 2021).
- Korea Ministry of Health and Welfare. Watch Out for Children’s Traffic Accidents. 2020. Available online: http://www.mohw.go.kr/react/index.jsp (accessed on 7 February 2021).
- Ewing, R.; Schroeer, W.; Greene, W. School Location and Student Travel Analysis of Factors Affecting Mode Choice. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2004, 1895, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handy, S.L. Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices: Study of Austin Neighborhoods. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1996, 1552, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, C.; Tight, M.; Hodgson, F.; Page, M. A comparison of three methods for assessing the walkability of the pedestrian environment. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1500–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shatu, F. Built Environment Impact on Pedestrian Route Choice Behaviour: Shortest vs. Least Directional Change Routes; Queensland University of Technology: Brisbane City, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Dieleman, F.M.; Dijst, M.; Burghouwt, G. Urban Form and Travel Behaviour: Micro-level Household Attributes and Residential Context. Urban Stud. 2002, 39, 507–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, L.; Kerr, J.; Chapman, J.; Sallis, J.F. Urban Form Relationships with Walk Trip Frequency and Distance among Youth. Am. J. Health Promot. 2007, 21, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handy, S. Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 1996, 1, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.H.; Ahn, K.H. An empirical analysis of how neighborhood environment affects residents’ walking: A case study of twelve areas in Seoul. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Design. 2008, 24, 293–302. [Google Scholar]
- Gehl, J. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Papadimitriou, E.; Yannis, G.; Golias, J. A critical assessment of pedestrian behaviour models. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2009, 12, 242–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gim, T.-H.T.; Ko, J. Maximum Likelihood and Firth Logistic Regression of the Pedestrian Route Choice. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2017, 40, 616–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, J.H.; Gim, T.H. Analysis on pedestrian route choice behavior: Investigating factors for selecting the shortest paths. Seoul Stud. 2013, 14, 157–169. [Google Scholar]
- Chae, H.H.; Lee, K.H.; Ko, E.J. Comparative analysis of travel behaviors, activity range, and life patterns of children and parents in elementary school neighborhood: Focused on the neighborhood around Sin-gok elementary school in Gangseo-gu. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Design. 2020, 36, 87–99. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.N.; Ahn, K.H. Examining children’s mode choice for school trips and its determinants: A morphological case study of elementary school neighborhoods in Seoul. J. Urban Des. Inst. Korea Urban Des. 2010, 11, 93–112. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, K.H. A Study on the Characteristics of School Neighborhood Environment According to the Types of Urban form in Seoul. Master’s Thesis, University of National, Seoul, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kwon, J.; Park, S. A Study on the Factors Affecting Pedestrian Traffic Fatal Accidents around Elementary Schools: A Case Study of the Seoul Metropolitan City. J. Korea Plan. Assoc. 2018, 53, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, K.H. Effects of the Physical Environment around Elementary Schools on Children’s Walking Safety: A Case Study of the Elementary Schools in Changwon. J. Korean Assoc. Geogr. Inf. Stud. 2012, 15, 150–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seoul Development Institute. Urban Form Study of Seoul; Seoul Development Institute Press: Seoul, Korea, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ozbil, A.; Argin, G.; Yesiltepe, D. Pedestrian route choice by elementary school students: The role of street network configuration and pedestrian quality attributes in walking to school. Int. J. Des. Creat. Innov. 2016, 4, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millonig, A.; Schechtner, K. Understanding walking behaviour: Pedestrian motion patterns and preferences in shopping environments. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Walking, New York, NY, USA, 9 October 2009; Volume 21. [Google Scholar]
- Burton, E. Housing for an Urban Renaissance: Implications for Social Equity. Hous. Stud. 2003, 18, 537–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, K.; Gilliland, J.; Hess, P.; Tucker, P.; Irwin, J.; He, M. The Influence of the Physical Environment and Sociodemographic Characteristics on Children’s Mode of Travel to and From School. Am. J. Public Health 2009, 99, 520–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bottini, L. The effects of built environment on community participation in urban neighbourhoods: An empirical exploration. Cities 2018, 81, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, D.-I. Cause of Land-use on the Parking Difficulties in the Planned Residential Area -Case Study of GyoDong 2 Land development District in GangNeung City. J. Korea Contents Assoc. 2013, 13, 496–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agrawal, A.W.; Schlossberg, M.; Irvin, K. How Far, by Which Route and Why? A Spatial Analysis of Pedestrian Preference. J. Urban Des. 2008, 13, 81–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barton, B.K.; Ulrich, T.; Lyday, B. The roles of gender, age and cognitive development in children’s pedestrian route selection. Child Care Health Dev. 2011, 38, 280–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, S.K.; Lee, Y.M.; Kim, S.Y. A study on students’ satisfaction for pedestrian environment around elementary school in detached housing area: Focused on elementary schools in Ilsan new town. J. Reg. Assoc. Archit. Inst. Korea 2014, 16, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
- Dempsey, N. Quality of the Built Environment in Urban Neighbourhoods. Plan. Pract. Res. 2008, 23, 249–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMillan, T.E. The relative influence of urban form on a child’s travel mode to school. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2007, 41, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, V. Look Closely and You Will See, Listen Carefully and You Will Hear: Urban Design and Social Interaction on Streets. J. Urban Des. 2009, 14, 29–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Z.; Loo, B. Pedestrian environment and route choice: Evidence from New York City and Hong Kong. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 28, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helbing, D.; Molnár, P.; Farkas, I.; Bolay, K. Self-Organizing Pedestrian Movement. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2001, 28, 361–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oh, S.H.; Namgung, J.H. Pedestrian City: Twelve Guidelines for Better Pedestrian Environments; AURI Press: Anyang, Korea, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, L.D.; Saelens, B.; Powell, K.E.; Chapman, J.E. Stepping towards causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity? Soc. Sci. Med. 2007, 65, 1898–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evenson, K.R.; Birnbaum, A.S.; Bedimo-Rung, A.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Voorhees, C.C.; Ring, K.; Elder, J.P. Girls’ perception of physical environmental factors and transportation: Reliability and association with physical activity and active transport to school. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2006, 3, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Black, C.; Collins, A.; Snell, M. Encouraging Walking: The Case of Journey-to-school Trips in Compact Urban Areas. Urban Stud. 2001, 38, 1121–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.H.; Lee, S.H. Characteristics of the street in housing complex based on children’s active transportation: A case study of Eunpyeong Newtown with primary school students. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Des. 2013, 29, 55–66. [Google Scholar]
- Schlossberg, M.; Greene, J.; Phillips, P.P.; Johnson, B.; Parker, B. School Trips: Effects of Urban Form and Distance on Travel Mode. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2006, 72, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewing, R.; Handy, S. Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. J. Urban Des. 2009, 14, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.N.; Lee, S.M. Evaluation System for Street Walkability and Vitality; AURI Press: Sejong, Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Boarnet, M.G.; Anderson, C.L.; Day, K.; McMillan, T.; Alfonzo, M. Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School legislation: Urban form changes and children’s active transportation to school. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Son, D.P.; Chae, H.H.; Lee, K.H. Analysis of the neighborhood environment’s influence on elementary school students’ travel mode and route to school. J. Urban Des. Inst. Korea Urban Des. 2020, 20, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.M.; Ko, J.H.; Park, S.Y.; Lee, M.H. Wayfinding app users’ characteristics from a microscopic perspective: Changes in user characteristics by time of day. J. Transp. Res. Korea Transp. Inst. 2020, 27, 47–65. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York; Random House, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
Division | Measures | Variable Description |
---|---|---|
Personal characteristics | Gender, age (grade), companionship, housing type, purpose of walking, walking distance, route choice (shortest vs. non-shortest) | Survey (five-point Likert scale) |
Satisfaction with neighborhood environment (factors) | Pedestrian safety, pedestrian convenience, pedestrian activity, obstacles to walking, accessibility, CPTED (safety facilities, dead zone, evacuation facilities), satisfaction (walking environment and pedestrian network) | Survey (five-point Likert scale) |
Classification | Frequency (Persons) | Ratio (%) | Classification | Frequency (Persons) | Ratio (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male (0) | 127 | 50.60 | Grade | 4th grade (0) 5th grade (1) | 15 | 5.98 |
Female (1) | 124 | 49.40 | 6th grade (3) | 31 205 | 12.35 81.67 | ||
Region (School name) | Soong-gok Elementary (1) | 76 | 30.28 | Height | Under 4.9 ft (0) | 98 | 39.04 |
Jam-sil Elementary School (2) | 94 | 37.45 | More than 4.9 ft (1) | 153 | 60.96 | ||
Sin-ga Elementary School (3) | 81 | 32.27 | Walking time | Within 5 min (0) | 15 | 5.98 | |
Company | None (0) | 152 | 60.56 | More than 5 min and Within 20 min (1) | 137 | 54.58 |
Characteristics | Soong-gok Elementary School (n = 76) | Jam-sil Elementary School (n = 94) | Sin-ga Elementary School (n = 81) | F | Post-Hoc Analysis (Scheffe Test) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
Overall satisfaction | 3.56 | 0.8 | 3.95 | 0.8 | 3.59 | 0.9 | 5.59 ** 1 | 2, 3 > 1 |
Pedestrian safety | 3.10 | 1.2 | 3.58 | 1.2 | 3.24 | 1.3 | 3.53 ** | 2, 3 > 1 |
Pedestrian convenience | 2.75 | 1.2 | 3.37 | 1.2 | 3.20 | 1.3 | 5.36 ** | 2, 3 > 1 |
Pedestrian activity | 3.30 | 0.9 | 3.82 | 1.1 | 3.29 | 1.3 | 6.10 ** | 1, 2 > 3 |
Road slope | 3.43 | 1.0 | 3.82 | 1.1 | 3.51 | 1.2 | 2.91 | 2, 3 > 1 |
Illegal parking | 3.13 | 1.1 | 3.61 | 1.1 | 3.18 | 1.3 | 4.57 * | 2, 3 > 1 |
Accessibility of spatial facilities | 4.01 | 1.1 | 4.47 | 0.8 | 4.4 | 0.8 | 6.41 ** | 2, 3 > 1 |
Accessibility of school | 3.92 | 1.3 | 4.46 | 0.8 | 4.30 | 0.9 | 6.23 ** | 2, 3 > 1 |
Dead (remote) zone(s) | 3.46 | 1.3 | 3.85 | 1.2 | 3.53 | 1.3 | 2.48 | 2, 3 > 1 |
Evacuation facilities | 3.28 | 1.2 | 3.91 | 1.2 | 3.35 | 1.4 | 6.64 ** | 2, 3 > 1 |
Case | Route Selection Characteristics | x2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall (%) | Non-Shortest Route Selection | Shortest Route Selection | ||||
Frequency | Ratio (%) | Frequency | Ratio (%) | |||
Soong-gok Elementary School (1) | (100%) | 34 | 44.74 | 42 | 55.26 | 4.8266 |
Jam-sil Elementary School (2) | (100%) | 45 | 47.87 | 49 | 52.13 | |
Sin-ga Elementary School (3) | (100%) | 26 | 32.10 | 55 | 67.90 | |
Total | 251 (100%) | 105 | - | 146 | - |
Categories | Variables | z | S. E | P | Odds Ratio | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | 1.992 | |||||
Neighborhood pedestrian environment (walkability) | Pedestrian safety | Sufficiency of walking space | 0.28 | 0.172 | 0.776 | 1.048 |
Availability of walking space | −0.84 | 0.156 | 0.402 | 0.858 | ||
Safety (collision avoidance) | −0.31 | 0.162 | 0.757 | 0.949 | ||
Pedestrian convenience | Connectivity of walking space | 0.77 | 0.192 | 0.442 | 1.139 | |
Continuity of walking space | 0.63 | 0.188 | 0.528 | 1.112 | ||
Legibility of wayfinding | 1.04 | 0.226 | 0.298 | 1.214 | ||
Pedestrian activity | Comfort of walking space | −1.09 | 0.148 | 0.276 | 0.822 | |
Aesthetic impression (human scale) | −2.6 | 0.100 | 0.009 *** | 0.684 | ||
Diversity and interests (e.g., pocket parks, open spaces, and public spaces) | −1.03 | 0.126 | 0.301 | 0.859 | ||
Pedestrian network | Obstacles to walking | Road slope | −0.37 | 0.146 | 0.712 | 0.945 |
Illegal parking | 0.69 | 0.204 | 0.487 | 1.133 | ||
Vehicle traffic and speed | 2.46 | 0.261 | 0.014 ** | 1.525 | ||
Accessibility | Accessibility of spatial facilities (e.g., parks, public spaces, plazas) | −0.54 | 0.192 | 0.592 | 0.891 | |
Accessibility of schools (including kindergartens) | −1.01 | 0.154 | 0.314 | 0.830 | ||
Accessibility of cultural and welfare facilities (e.g., children’s library) | −0.43 | 0.140 | 0.669 | 0.938 | ||
CPTED | Safety facilities (e.g., CCTV, streetlights, emergency bells) | 0.4 | 0.168 | 0.69 | 1.065 | |
Dead zone(s) (i.e., blind spots) | −0.79 | 0.149 | 0.429 | 0.873 | ||
Evacuation facilities (e.g., police substations, escape routes) | 0.76 | 0.202 | 0.449 | 1.143 | ||
Satisfaction | Satisfaction of route choice | 0.97 | 0.328 | 0.334 | 1.280 | |
Individual | Gender | Gender (Male = 0, Female = 1) | −1.45 | 0.193 | 0.148 | 0.651 |
Housing type | Apartment (No = 0, Yes = 1) | −0.32 | 0.314 | 0.752 | 0.895 | |
Company | Company (No = 0, Yes = 1) | −1.67 | 0.181 | 0.096 * | 0.609 | |
Spatial structure | Region | Region 2 * (Jam-sil Elementary School) | −0.31 | 0.370 | 0.758 | 0.878 |
Region 3 * (Sin-ga Elementary School) | 1.68 | 0.735 | 0.092 * | 1.911 |
Categories | Variables | Soong-gok Elementary School (n = 76) | Jam-sil Elementary School (n = 94) | Sin-ga Elementary School (n = 82) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
z | p | Odds | z | p | odds | z | p | odds | |||
Pedestrian safety | Sufficiency of walking space | −1.43 | 0.152 | 0.543 | 1.63 | 0.103 | 1.781 | −1.4 | 0.160 | 0.512 | |
Availability of walking space | 0.67 | 0.503 | 1.400 | −1.62 | 0.106 | 0.530 | 0.33 | 0.743 | 1.170 | ||
Safety (collision avoidance) | 0.19 | 0.853 | 1.074 | 0.63 | 0.530 | 1.248 | −1.71 | 0.087 * | 0.420 | ||
Pedestrian convenience | Connectivity of walking space | −0.35 | 0.729 | 0.855 | −0.39 | 0.694 | 0.878 | 0.18 | 0.861 | 1.080 | |
Continuity of walking space | −1.94 | 0.052 * | 0.386 | 0.08 | 0.933 | 1.029 | 2.33 | 0.02 ** | 4.495 | ||
Legibility of wayfinding | −1.18 | 0.239 | 0.578 | −1.22 | 0.224 | 0.613 | 2.44 | 0.015 ** | 4.186 | ||
Pedestrian activity | Comfort of walking space | −1.93 | 0.053 * | 0.415 | −0.85 | 0.396 | 0.723 | −0.95 | 0.344 | 0.570 | |
Aesthetic impression (human scale) | 0.15 | 0.880 | 1.054 | −2.46 | 0.014 ** | 0.398 | −1.24 | 0.214 | 0.658 | ||
Diversity and interests (e.g., pocket parks, open spaces, public spaces) | −0.61 | 0.543 | 0.787 | −0.54 | 0.590 | 0.843 | −0.71 | 0.476 | 0.785 | ||
Obstacles to walking | Road slope | −1.46 | 0.144 | 0.562 | 1.89 | 0.059 * | 2.021 | −0.29 | 0.769 | 0.889 | |
Illegal parking | 1.66 | 0.097 * | 2.352 | 1.01 | 0.313 | 1.474 | −1.71 | 0.087 * | 0.434 | ||
Vehicle traffic and speed | 2.49 | 0.013 ** | 2.842 | 3.02 | 0.003 *** | 3.323 | −0.81 | 0.416 | 0.685 | ||
Accessibility | Accessibility of spatial facilities (e.g., parks, public spaces, plazas) | −1.33 | 0.182 | 0.555 | 0.4 | 0.693 | 1.204 | −0.8 | 0.424 | 0.555 | |
Accessibility of schools (including kindergartens) | 0.51 | 0.610 | 1.204 | −0.41 | 0.679 | 0.832 | −1.09 | 0.276 | 0.485 | ||
Accessibility of cultural & welfare facilities (e.g., children’s library) | 0.26 | 0.792 | 1.109 | 0.08 | 0.934 | 1.026 | −1.77 | 0.076 * | 0.331 | ||
CPTED | Safety facilities (e.g., CCTV, streetlights, emergency bells) | 0.36 | 0.720 | 1.172 | −0.21 | 0.833 | 0.926 | 1.57 | 0.117 | 2.076 | |
Dead zone(s) (i.e., blind spots) | −0.65 | 0.513 | 0.765 | −0.46 | 0.648 | 0.851 | −0.38 | 0.705 | 0.849 | ||
Evacuation facilities (e.g., police substations, escape routes) | −0.49 | 0.622 | 0.800 | 1.45 | 0.147 | 1.702 | 0.16 | 0.876 | 1.073 | ||
Satisfaction | Satisfaction of route selection | 1.34 | 0.181 | 2.663 | −1.13 | 0.260 | 0.519 | 2.33 | 0.020 ** | 11.599 | |
Gender | Gender (Male = 0, Female = 1) | −1.1 | 0.273 | 0.440 | −1.26 | 0.206 | 0.469 | 0.57 | 0.571 | 1.591 | |
Housing type | Apartment (No = 0, Yes = 1) | −0.25 | 0.802 | 0.839 | 0.55 | 0.585 | 1.907 | −2.26 | 0.024 ** | 0.102 | |
Company | Company (No = 0, Yes= 1) | 0.91 | 0.361 | 1.905 | −2 | 0.046 ** | 0.298 | −1.99 | 0.046 ** | 0.187 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, S.; Lee, M.-H. Impact of Neighborhood Environment on Pedestrian Route Selection among Elementary Schoolchildren in Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7049. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137049
Lee S, Lee M-H. Impact of Neighborhood Environment on Pedestrian Route Selection among Elementary Schoolchildren in Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(13):7049. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137049
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Somin, and Myeong-Hun Lee. 2021. "Impact of Neighborhood Environment on Pedestrian Route Selection among Elementary Schoolchildren in Korea" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 13: 7049. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137049
APA StyleLee, S., & Lee, M. -H. (2021). Impact of Neighborhood Environment on Pedestrian Route Selection among Elementary Schoolchildren in Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 7049. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137049