Pedestrianization Impacts on Air Quality Perceptions and Environment Satisfaction: The Case of Regenerated Streets in Downtown Seoul
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Pedestrianization
1.2. The Walking Environment and Perceptions
1.3. Air Quality Perceptions
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Study Area
2.2. Data
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Differences in Air Quality Perceptions
3.2. Comparison of Pedestrian Perceptions by Pedestrian Path Design
3.2.1. Components of the Perceived Street Environment
3.2.2. Differences in Street Perceptions
3.3. Factors Affecting Pedestrian Satisfaction
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kang, C.D.; Cervero, R. From Elevated Freeway to Urban Greenway: Land Value Impacts of the CGC Project in Seoul. Korea. Urban Stud. 2009, 46, 2771–2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, H.G. Policy trends of pedestrian-friendly city. World Cities. 2015, 10, 6–15. [Google Scholar]
- Southworth, M. Designing the walkable city. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2005, 131, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parajuli, A.; Pojani, D. Barriers to the pedestrianization of city centres: Perspectives from the Global North and the Global South. J. Urban Des. 2018, 23, 142–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burden, D.; Wallwork, M.; Sides, K.; Trias, R.; Rue, H. Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighbourhoods; Center for Livable Communities: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Soni, N.; Soni, N. Benefits of pedestrianization and warrants to pedestrianize an area. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yassin, H.H. Livable city: An approach to pedestrianization through tactical urbanism. Alex. Eng. J. 2019, 58, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, S.; Ross, W. Effects of pedestrianisation on the commercial and retail areas: Study in Khao San road, Bangkok. Splintered urbanism. World Transp. Pol. Pract. 2006, 13, 37–48. [Google Scholar]
- Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Khreis, H. Car free cities: Pathway to healthy urban living. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tobon, M.; Jaramillo, J.P.; Sarmiento, I. Pedestrianization and semi-pedestrianization: A model for recoverypublic space in the Medellín downtown. In Proceedings of the MOVICI-MOYCOT 2018: Joint Conference for Urban Mobility in the Smart City, Medellin, Colombia, 18–20 April 2018; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Aggelakakis, A.; Anagnostopoulou, A.; Tromaras, A.; Boile, M.; Mantzinou, N. Influence of traffic emissions on urban air quality: A case study of a medium sized city. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Sustainable Urban Mobility, Skiathos Island, Greece, 24–25 May 2018; pp. 323–329. [Google Scholar]
- Hass-Klau, C. Impact of pedestrianization and traffic calming on retailing. Transp. Policy 1993, 1, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parkhurst, G. Regulating cars and buses in cities: The case of pedestrianisation in Oxford. Econ. Aff. 2003, 23, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villani, C.; Talamini, G.; Hu, Z. The Patterns of Stationary Activities during COVID-19 Distancing Relaxation: The elevated pedestrian network of Mong Kok, Hong Kong. Environ. Behav. Proc. J. 2020, 5, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, J.; Allan, A.; Lin, D. The development of grade separation pedestrian system: A review. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2013, 38, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leather, J.; Fabian, H.; Gota, S.; Mejia, A. Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities State and Issues; Asian Development Bank (ADB): Mandaluyong City, Phillippines, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S. Walking City, Seoul; The Seoul Institute: Seoul, Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Robertson, K.A. Downtown redevelopment strategies in the United States: An end-of-the-century assessment. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1995, 61, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, N. Achievements and tasks of urban regeneration pilot project in Seoul. Urban Plan. 2021, 8, 37–44. [Google Scholar]
- Camerin, F. From “Ribera Plan” to “Diagonal Mar”, passing through 1992 “Vila Olímpica”. How urban renewal took place as urban regeneration in Poblenou district (Barcelona). Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gainza, X. Culture-led neighbourhood transformations beyond the revitalisation/gentrification dichotomy. Urban Studies 2017, 54, 953–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J. An analysis of index for gentrification occurred in urban regeneration projects. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2019, 20, 187–194. [Google Scholar]
- Seo, B.K.; Joo, Y.M. Innovation or episodes? Multi-scalar analysis of governance change in urban regeneration policy in South Korea. Cities 2019, 92, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castillo-Manzano, J.I.; Lopez-Valpuesta, L.; Asencio-Flores, J.P. Extending pedestrianization processes outside the old city center; conflict and benefits in the case of the city of Seville. Habitat Int. 2014, 44, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handy, S.L. Understanding the link between urban form and nonwork travel behavior. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 1996, 15, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.; Moudon, A.V. The 3Ds+R: Quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2006, 11, 204–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervero, R.; Kockelman, K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 1997, 2, 199–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leslie, E.; Cerin, E. Are perceptions of the local environment related to neighbourhood satisfaction and mental health in adults? Prev. Med. 2008, 47, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.M.; Conway, T.L.; Frank, L.D.; Saelens, B.E.; Cain, K.L.; Sallis, J.F. The Relation of Perceived and Objective Environment Attributes to Neighborhood Satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 136–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. Perception of density by pedestrians on urban paths: An experiment in virtual reality. J. Urban Des. 2018, 23, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parkes, A.; Kearns, A.; Atkinson, R. What Makes People Dissatisfied with their Neighbourhoods? Urban Stud. 2002, 39, 2413–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Donovan, R.J. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Prev. Med. 2002, 35, 601–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krambeck, H.V. The Global Walkability Index; Environmental Engineering: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Owen, N.; Humpel, N.; Leslie, E.; Bauman, A.; Sallis, J.F. Understanding environmental influences on walking. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2004, 27, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ewing, R.; Handy, S. Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. J. Urban Des. 2009, 14, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrer, S.; Ruiz, T.; Mars, L. A qualitative study on the role of the built environment for short walking trips. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2015, 33, 141–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pyo, S.Y.; Kim, B.S.; Park, J.A. Effects of the Perception of Street Environment Elements and D:H Ratio on the Street Satisfaction on Commercial Streets-Focusing on Garosu Street, Daehakro Street and Jungjadong Cafe Street. J. Urban Des. Inst. Korea 2015, 16, 77–87. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.; Kim, H.; Jun, C. Analysis of physical environmental factors that affect pedestrian volumes by street type. J. Urban Des. Inst. Korea. 2015, 16, 123–140. [Google Scholar]
- Alfonzo, M.A. To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 808–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adkins, A.; Dill, J.; Luhr, G.; Neal, M. Unpacking Walkability: Testing the Influence of Urban Design Features on Perceptions of Walking Environment Attractiveness. J. Urban Des. 2012, 17, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindelöw, D.; Svensson, Å.; Sternudd, C.; Johansson, M. What limits the pedestrian? Exploring perceptions of walking in the built environment and in the context of every-day life. J. Transp. Health 2014, 1, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, M.; Sternudd, C.; Kärrholm, M. Perceived urban design qualities and affective experiences of walking. J. Urban Des. 2016, 21, 256–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Park, S.; Lee, J.S. Meso- or micro-scale? Environmental factors influencing pedestrian satisfaction. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2014, 30, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, L.; Cao, J. How perceptions mediate the effects of the built environment on travel behavior? Transportation 2019, 46, 175–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, V. Walkable streets: Pedestrian behavior, perceptions and attitudes. J. Urban. 2008, 1, 217–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, J.; Chen, Y.; He, N. Plan pedestrian friendly environments around subway stations: Lessons from Shanghai, China. J. Urban Des. 2017, 22, 796–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bivina, G.R.; Gupta, A.; Parida, M. Influence of microscale environmental factors on perceived walk accessibility to metro stations. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2019, 67, 142–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohanty, R.N.; Chani, P.S. Assessment of pedestrians’ travel experience at the religious city of Puri using structural equation modelling. J. Urban Des. 2019, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Jiao, J.; Mao, J.; Wu, H. Understanding Pedestrians’ Travel Behavior in Large Chinese Cities, A Case Study of Shanghai Central City. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 2287–2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blečić, I.; Canu, D.; Cecchini, A.; Congiu, T.; Fancello, G. Factors of Perceived Walkability: A Pilot Empirical Study. In Proceedings of the Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2016, Beijing, China, 4–7 July 2016; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 125–137. [Google Scholar]
- Shafray, E.; Kim, S. A Study of Walkable Spaces with Natural Elements for Urban Regeneration: A Focus on Cases in Seoul, South Korea. Sustainability 2017, 9, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chung, J.; Kim, S.-N.; Kim, H. The Impact of PM10 Levels on Pedestrian Volume: Findings from Streets in Seoul, South Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edgley, A.; Pilnick, A.; Clarke, M. ‘The air still wasn’t good… everywhere I went I was surrounded’: Lay perceptions of air quality and health. Health Sociol. Rev. 2011, 20, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.; Yi, O.; Kim, H. The role of differences in individual and community attributes in perceived air quality. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 425, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, Y.; Liu, F.; Lu, Y.; Mao, Z.; Lu, H.; Wu, Y.; Chu, Y.; Yu, L.; Liu, Y.; Ren, M. Factors affecting parent’s perception on air quality—From the individual to the community level. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolopoulou, M.; Kleissl, J.; Linden, P.; Lykoudis, S. Pedestrians’ perception of environmental stimuli through field surveys: Focus on particulate pollution. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 2493–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Simone, D.; Eyles, J.; Newbold, K.B.; Kitchen, P.; Williams, A. Air quality in Hamilton: Who is concerned? perceptions from three neighbourhoods. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 108, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, R. Place and the experience of air quality. Health Place 2007, 13, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ory, D.T.; Mokhtarian, P.L.; Collantes, G.O. Exploring the cognitive and affective mechanisms behind subjective assessments of travel amounts. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 494–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Comparing Urban Air Pollution. Available online: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-chart (accessed on 24 July 2021).
- Korea Gallup. Daily Opinion; Korea Gallup: Seoul, Korea, 2019; p. 339. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.; Jeong, S. Effects of “Walking City, Seoul” Policy and Directions for Future Researches; Report of Policy Research; The Seoul Institute: Seoul, Korea, 2019; pp. 1–83. [Google Scholar]
- Seok, J. Pedestrian Priority Zone Evaluation Using Big Data. J. Korean Soc. Transp. 2016, 13, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
- Cambra, P.; Moura, F. How does walkability change relate to walking behavior change? Effects of a street improvement in pedestrian volumes and walking experience. J. Transp. Health 2020, 16, 100797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J. Perceived neighborhood environment and transit use in low-income populations. Transp. Res. Record. 2013, 2397, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakefield, S.E.; Elliott, S.J.; Cole, D.C.; Eyles, J.D. Environmental risk and (re) action: Air quality, health, and civic involvement in an urban industrial neighbourhood. Health Place 2001, 7, 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howel, D.; Moffatt, S.; Prince, H.; Bush, J.; Dunn, C. Urban air quality in north-east England: Exploring theinfluences on local views and perceptions. Risk Anal. 2002, 22, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sim, J.; Bohannon, C.L.; Miller, P. What Park Visitors Survey Tells Us: Comparing Three Elevated Parks—The High Line, 606, and High Bridge. Sustainability 2019, 12, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 76, 265–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahani, R.; Praveena, D.; Bhuyan, P.K. Use of multinomial logit model in evaluation of service levels of pedestrian facilities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Transportation Planning and Implementation Methodologies for Developing Countries (12th TPMDC), Mumbai, India, 19–21 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.; Lee, Y.S.; Lee, C. An Analysis of Street Environment Affecting Pedestrian Walking Satisfaction for Different Age Groups. J. Korea Plan. Assoc. 2014, 49, 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, X.; Handy, S.L.; Mokhtarian, P.L. The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation 2006, 33, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saelens, B.E.; Handy, S.L. Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2008, 40, S550–S566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alfonzo, M.; Boarnet, M.G.; Day, K.; Mcmillan, T.; Anderson, C.L. The relationship of neighbourhood built environment featuresand adult parents’ walking. J. Urban Des. 2008, 13, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humpel, N.; Owen, N.; Iverson, D.; Leslie, E.; Bauman, A. Perceived environment attributes, residential location, and walking for particular purposes. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2004, 26, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- St-Louis, E.; Manaugh, K.; van Lierop, D.; El-Geneidy, A. The happy commuter: A comparison of commuter satisfaction across modes. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2014, 26, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kari, S. Pedestrian Experience: Affordances and Habits in Utility Walking–Case Otaniemi Campus. Master’s Thesis, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Xia, T.; Zhang, Y.; Braunack-Mayer, A.; Crabb, S. Public attitudes toward encouraging sustainable transportation: An Australian case study. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2017, 11, 593–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, J.; Sakata, Y.; Hashimoto, Y. Is individual environmental consciousness one of the determinants in transport mode choice? Appl. Econ. 2008, 40, 1229–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gyenggi Housing & Urban Development Corporation. Establishment of a Pedestrian-Oriented New Town: An Interim Report; Gyenggi Housing & Urban Development Corporation: Seoul, Korea, 2020; p. 162. [Google Scholar]
- Fabris, L.M.F.; Camerin, F.; Semprebon, G.; Balzarotti, R.M. New Healthy Settlements Responding to Pandemic Outbreaks: Approaches from (and for) the Global City. Plan J. 2020, 5, 385–406. [Google Scholar]
- Ahn, H.; Lee, J.; Hong, A. Does urban greenway design affect air pollution exposure? A case study of Seoul, South Korea. Sustain. Cit. Soc. 2021, 72, 103038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attribute | (a) Sejongno | (b) Cheonggyecheon-ro | (c) Seoullo |
---|---|---|---|
Regeneration type | Traffic road—pedestrian plaza | Removal of expressway | Overpass—pedestrian path |
Height of greenway footpath | Ground level (0 m) | Underground level (−3 m) | Highway level (10 m) |
Year opened | 2009 | 2005 | 2017 |
Average visitors per year | 6,000,000 | 20,000,000 | 7,000,000 |
Number of lanes/ traffic volume | 10 lanes/ high | 4 lanes/ low | 3–12 lanes/ high |
Full Sample | Greenway Footpath | Sidewalk | |
---|---|---|---|
Location | 621 | 285 (45.9%) | 336 (54.1%) |
Sejongno | 210 (33.8%) | 80 (38.1%) | 130 (61.9%) |
Cheonggyecheon-ro | 220 (35.4%) | 94 (42.7%) | 126 (57.3%) |
Seoullo | 191 (30.8%) | 111 (58.1%) | 80 (41.8%) |
Period | |||
Weekday | 332 (53.5%) | 146 (51.2%) | 186 (55.4%) |
Weekend | 289 (46.5%) | 139 (48.8%) | 150 (44.6%) |
Gender | |||
Male | 320 (51.5%) | 131 (46.0%) | 189 (56.3%) |
Female | 301 (48.5%) | 154 (54.0%) | 147 (43.8%) |
Age | |||
20s | 246 (39.6%) | 100 (35.1%) | 146 (43.5%) |
30s | 98 (15.8%) | 47 (16.5%) | 51 (15.2%) |
40s | 88 (14.2%) | 37 (13.0%) | 51 (15.2%) |
50s | 108 (17.4%) | 54 (18.9%) | 54 (16.1%) |
≥60s | 81 (13%) | 47 (16.5%) | 34 (10.1%) |
Frequency of visits | |||
Almost daily | 108 (17.4%) | 30 (10.5%) | 78 (23.2%) |
2–3 times a week | 82 (13.2%) | 34 (11.9%) | 48 (14.3%) |
Once a week | 73 (11.8%) | 35 (12.3%) | 38 (11.3%) |
Rarely | 297 (47.8%) | 143 (50.2%) | 154 (45.8%) |
Never | 61 (9.8%) | 43 (15.1%) | 18 (5.4%) |
Purpose of visits | |||
Commuting | 87 (14%) | 23 (8.4%) | 63 (18.8%) |
Shopping | 57 (9.2%) | 19 (6.7%) | 38 (11.3%) |
Business | 27 (4.3%) | 9 (3.2%) | 18 (5.4%) |
Social activities | 188 (30.3%) | 76 (26.7%) | 112 (33.3%) |
To walk or exercise | 180 (29%) | 121 (42.4%) | 59 (17.6%) |
Transfer or other | 82 (13.2%) | 36 (12.7%) | 46 (13.7%) |
Total | 621 | 285 (45.9%) | 336 (54.1%) |
Variable | Description | Variable Type |
---|---|---|
Greenway footpath | Location of respondent (0 = sidewalk, 1 = Greenway footpath) | Dichotomous |
Official monitoring | Observation value from nearest monitoring stations | Continuous |
Site | Whether respondent is on the Cheonggyecheon-ro, Seoullo, or Sejongno | Nominal |
Weekday | Whether survey was conducted on weekday (0 = No, 1 = Yes) | Dichotomous |
Gender | Respondent’s gender (0 = Male, 1 = Female) | Dichotomous |
Age | Age of the respondent (1 = 20s, 2 = 30s, 3 = 40s, 4 = 50s, 5 = 60s and older) | Nominal |
Visit purpose | Purpose of visit (1 = Commute, 2 = Shopping, 3 = Using business facilities, 4 = Social activities, 5 = For a walk, 6 = Exercise, 7 = Transfer) | Nominal |
Walking time | What duration do you walk for on an average on a weekday? (1 = 0–10 min, 2 = 10–30 min, 3 = 30 min–2 h, 4 = more than 2 h) | Ordinal |
Asthma | Do you have a respiratory disease (e.g., asthma)? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) | Dichotomous |
Smoking | Do you smoke? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) | Dichotomous |
Attitude toward the policy | What do you think about controlling traffic to reduce car use and instead promoting pedestrians/walking for a better air quality in downtown Seoul? (1 = Strongly disagree, 6 = Strongly agree) | Ordinal |
Sensitivity to air quality | Do you think air pollution significantly affects your health? | Ordinal |
Vitality | Value of factor 1 | Continuous |
Comfort | Value of factor 2 | Continuous |
Restorativeness | Value of factor 3 | Continuous |
Connectivity | Value of factor 4 | Continuous |
Lack of congestion | Value of factor 5 | Continuous |
Perceived air quality | How do you rate the air quality of this street? (1 = Very bad, 6 = Very good) | Ordinal |
Perceived noise level | How do you rate the noise level of this street? (1 = Very quiet, 6 = Very noisy) | Ordinal |
Street satisfaction | How satisfied are you with the overall environment of the street? (0 = Not satisfied, 1 = Satisfied) | Dichotomous |
Air Quality Perception | Street Satisfaction | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Site | N | Mean Rank | Sum of Rank | Z-Value | p-Value | Mean Rank | Sum of Rank | Z-Value | p-Value |
Sejongno | |||||||||
Greenway footpath | 84 | 105.23 | 8839.00 | −0.446 | 0.655 | 103.84 | 8722.50 | −0.725 | 0.468 |
Sidewalk | 130 | 108.97 | 14,166.00 | 109.87 | 14,282.50 | ||||
Cheonggyecheon-ro | |||||||||
Greenway footpath | 97 | 122.71 | 11,902.50 | −2.012 | 0.044 ** | 112.95 | 10,956.50 | −0.201 | 0.841 |
Sidewalk | 128 | 105.64 | 13,522.50 | 111.27 | 14,019.50 | ||||
Seoullo | |||||||||
Greenway footpath | 121 | 112.98 | 13,671.00 | −2.461 | 0.014 ** | 117.60 | 14,112.00 | −3.965 | 0.000 *** |
Sidewalk | 87 | 92.70 | 8065.00 | 85.24 | 7416.00 |
Factors | Formulation of Items | Loadings | Eigenvalue | Explained Variance (%) | Cumulative Variance (%) | Cronbach’s Alpha |
Factor 1: Vitality | Lively atmosphere | 0.744 | 3.265 | 15.550 | 15.550 | 0.795 |
Many cultural elements and attractions | 0.740 | |||||
A symbolic place | 0.709 | |||||
Interesting and harmonious buildings | 0.693 | |||||
Attractive landscape | 0.565 | |||||
Factor 2: Comfort | Calm and quiet | 0.704 | 3.188 | 15.181 | 30.730 | 0.835 |
Clean | 0.701 | |||||
Safe from traffic | 0.687 | |||||
Convenient and easy to walk on | 0.649 | |||||
Comfort | 0.621 | |||||
Sufficient rest spots | 0.523 | |||||
Well landscaped | 0.509 | |||||
Factor 3: Restorative-ness | Sufficient trees and shade | 0.779 | 2.535 | 12.071 | 42.801 | 0.757 |
Sufficient seating such as a bench | 0.771 | |||||
Sufficient green spaces | 0.508 | |||||
Not monotonous/boring | 0.485 | |||||
Factor 4: Connectivity | Sidewalks that are wide enough | 0.781 | 2.043 | 9.730 | 52.531 | 0.705 |
Streets that physically connect | 0.674 | |||||
No parked cars and bicycles on the streets | 0.643 | |||||
Factor 5: Lack of congestion | Not noisy | 0.815 | 1.993 | 9.491 | 62.022 | 0.709 |
Not congested with traffic | 0.785 |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Exp (B) | B | Exp (B) | B | Exp (B) | B | Exp (B) | |
Locational factors | ||||||||
Greenway footpath | 0.309 * | 1.363 | 0.372 * | 1.450 | 0.181 | 1.198 | 0.149 | 1.161 |
Cheonggyecheon-ro | 0.560 ** | 1.751 | 0.395 * | 1.485 | 0.098 | 1.103 | 0.021 | 1.022 |
Seoullo | 0.140 | 1.150 | 0.022 | 1.022 | −0.156 | 0.856 | −0.153 | 0.858 |
Sejongno (Ref) | ||||||||
Official monitoring | −0.010 | 0.990 | −0.005 | 0.995 | 0.003 | 1.003 | 0.012 | 1.012 |
Weekday | 0.199 | 1.221 | 0.236 | 1.266 | 0.281 | 1.325 | 0.281 | 1.324 |
Individual factors | ||||||||
Gender | 0.075 | 0.710 | −0.040 | 0.961 | −0.071 | 0.931 | ||
Age in the 20s | 0.468 ** | 1.596 | 0.396 | 1.485 | 0.297 | 1.346 | ||
Age in the 60s or above | −0.113 | 0.893 | −0.108 | 0.898 | −0.134 | 0.874 | ||
Age between 30–50s (Ref) | ||||||||
Visit for leisure | 0.381 * | 1.464 | 0.117 | 1.124 | 0.119 | 1.127 | ||
Walking 0–10 min | 1.449 ** | 4.261 | 1.547 ** | 4.696 | 1.467 ** | 4.338 | ||
Walking 10–30 min | 0.676 * | 1.966 | 0.774 * | 2.168 | 0.837 * | 2.309 | ||
Walking 30 min–2 h | 0.481 | 1.618 | 0.319 | 1.375 | 0.241 | 1.272 | ||
Walking more than 2 h (Ref) | ||||||||
Asthma | −0.543 | 0.581 | −0.433 | 0.649 | −0.362 | 0.696 | ||
Smoking | −0.489 * | 0.613 | −0.426 | 0.653 | −0.437 | 0.646 | ||
Attitude toward the policy | 1.349 *** | 3.852 | 1.693 *** | 5.437 | 1.624 *** | 5.074 | ||
Sensitivity to air quality | 0.315 | 1.370 | 0.267 | 1.306 | 0.238 | 1.269 | ||
Perceived street environment | ||||||||
Vitality | 0.670 *** | 1.953 | 0.613 *** | 1.846 | ||||
Comfort | 0.676 *** | 1.967 | 0.505 *** | 1.656 | ||||
Restorativeness | 0.310 ** | 0.733 | 0.239 ** | 0.788 | ||||
Connectivity | 0.128 | 0.879 | 0.150 | 0.860 | ||||
Lack of congestion | 0.426 *** | 0.653 | 0.335 ** | 0.716 | ||||
Perceived air quality and noise | ||||||||
Perceived air quality | 0.932 *** | 2.539 | ||||||
Perceived noise level | −0.248 ** | 0.780 | ||||||
Chi-squared (Sig) | 15.619 (0.008) | 88.628 (0.000) | 171.161 (0.000) | 200.458 (0.000) | ||||
Nagelkerke | 0.033 | 0.185 | 0.355 | 0.408 |
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
Kim, U.; Lee, J.; He, S.Y. Pedestrianization Impacts on Air Quality Perceptions and Environment Satisfaction: The Case of Regenerated Streets in Downtown Seoul. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10225. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910225
Kim U, Lee J, He SY. Pedestrianization Impacts on Air Quality Perceptions and Environment Satisfaction: The Case of Regenerated Streets in Downtown Seoul. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(19):10225. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910225
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, UnHyo, Jeongwoo Lee, and Sylvia Y. He. 2021. "Pedestrianization Impacts on Air Quality Perceptions and Environment Satisfaction: The Case of Regenerated Streets in Downtown Seoul" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 19: 10225. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910225