Walkability Perception in Asian Cities: A Comparative Study in Bangkok and Nagoya
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Walking Environment
2.1. Walking Need
2.2. Street Design and Development in Asian Context
2.2.1. Thai Streets
2.2.2. Japanese Streets
3. Methodology
3.1. Experiment Cities
3.2. Case Study Streets
3.2.1. For the Bangkok Experiment
3.2.2. For the Nagoya Experiment
3.3. Evaluation Indicators
3.4. Street Evaluation
3.5. Analysis
3.5.1. Descriptive Analysis
3.5.2. Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Model
4. Comparative Analysis Results
4.1. Bangkok Experiment
4.1.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.1.2. Evaluation of the Case Study Streets
4.1.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis
4.1.4. Structural Equation Model
4.2. Nagoya Experiment
4.2.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2.2. Evaluation of the Case Study Streets
4.2.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis
4.2.4. Structural Equation Model
5. Discussions
5.1. Street Design
5.2. Walking Preference
5.3. Implication for Street Design
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Frank, L.D.; Devlin, A.; Johnstone, S.; Loon, J.V. Neighbourhood Design, Travel, and Health in Metro Vancouver: Using a Walkability Index; University of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, L.D.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L.; Chapman, J.E.; Saelens, B.E.; Bachman, W. Many Pathways from Land Use to Health: Associations between Neighborhood Walkability and Active Transportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2006, 72, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervero, R.; Kockelman, K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 1997, 2, 199–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NZ Transport Agency. Guide to Undertaking Community Street Reviews; NZ Transport Agency: Wellington, New Zealand, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gebel, K.; Bauman, A.; Owen, N.; Foster, S.; Giles-Corti, B. Position Statement: The Built Environment and Walking; National Heart Foundation: Melbourne, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- National Heart Foundation. Neighbourhood Walkability Checklist-How Walkable Is Your Community? National Heart Foundation: Melbourne, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Habibian, M.; Hosseinzadeh, A. Walkability index across trip purposes. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 42, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Alessandro, D.; Valeri, D.; Appolloni, L. Reliability of T-WSI to Evaluate Neighborhoods Walkability and Its Changes over Time. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Appolloni, L.; Giretti, A.; Corazza, M.; D’Alessandro, D. Walkable Urban Environments: An Ergonomic Approach of Evaluation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appolloni, L.; Corazza, M.V.; D’Alessandro, D. The Pleasure of Walking: An Innovative Methodology to Assess Appropriate Walkable Performance in Urban Areas to Support Transport Planning. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Azmi, D.I.; Ahmad, P. A GIS Approach: Determinant of Neighbourhood Environment Indices in Influencing Walkability between Two Precincts in Putrajaya. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 170, 557–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McGrath, L.J.; Hopkins, W.G.; Hinckson, E.A. Associations of Objectively Measured Built-Environment Attributes with Youth Moderate–Vigorous Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2015, 45, 841–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stafford, L.; Baldwin, C. Planning Walkable Neighborhoods. J. Plan. Lit. 2017, 33, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alves, F.; Cruz, S.; Ribeiro, A.; Silva, A.B.; Martins, J.; Cunha, I. Walkability Index for Elderly Health: A Proposal. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, I.; King, N. Walkable school neighborhoods are not playable neighborhoods. Health Place 2015, 35, 66–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, E.J.; Kim, H. Neighborhood Walkability and Housing Prices: A Correlation Study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bivina, G.; Gupta, A.; Parida, M. Influence of microscale environmental factors on perceived walk accessibility to metro stations. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 67, 142–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krambeck, H.V. The Global Walkability Index; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Ozawa, H.; Fukuda, A.; Malaitham, S.; Vichiensan, V.; Luathep, P.; Numa, H. Evaluation of walking environments around urban railway stations in Bangkok and consideration of improvement plans. Asian Transp. Stud. 2021, 7, 100038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.; Deakin, E.; Jang, K. Can Good Walkability Expand the Size of Transit-Oriented Developments? Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2015, 2519, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, L. Walkability Audit Tool. Work. Health Saf. 2015, 63, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wibowo, S.S.; Tanan, N.; Tinumbia, N. Walkability Measures for City Area in Indonesia (Case Study of Bandung). J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 2015, 11, 1507–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leather, J.; Fabian, H.; Gota, S.; Mejia, A. Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities State and Issues; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ewing, R.; Bartholomew, K. Pedestrian & Transit-Oriented Design; Urban Land Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Dul, J.; Bruder, R.; Buckle, P.; Carayon, P.; Falzon, P.; Marras, W.S.; Wilson, J.R.; Van Der Doelen, B. A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics 2012, 55, 377–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Alfonzo, M.A. To Walk or Not to Walk? The Hierarchy of Walking Needs. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 808–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speck, J. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time; North Point Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Lamour, Q.; Morelli, A.M.; Marins, K.R.D.C. Improving walkability in a TOD context: Spatial strategies that enhance walking in the Belém neighbourhood, in São Paulo, Brazil. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2019, 7, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mavoa, S.; Eagleson, S.; Badland, H.M.; Gunn, L.; Boulange, C.; Stewart, J.; Giles-Corti, B. Identifying appropriate land-use mix measures for use in a national walkability index. J. Transp. Land Use 2018, 11, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christian, E.H.; Bull, F.C.; Middleton, N.J.; Knuiman, M.W.; Divitini, M.L.; Hooper, P.; Amarasinghe, A.; Giles-Corti, B. How important is the land use mix measure in understanding walking behaviour? Results from the RESIDE study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coogan, M.A.; Adler, T.; Karash, K. The paths from walk preference to walk behavior: Applying latent factors in structural equation modeling. J. Transp. Land Use 2012, 5, 68–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Doi, K.; Kii, M.; Nakanishi, H. An Integrated Evaluation Method of Accessibility, Quality of Life, and Social Interaction. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2008, 35, 1098–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calthorpe, P. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Gehl, J. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- National Association of City Transportation Officials. Blueprint for Autonomous Urbanism, 2nd ed.; National Association of City Transportation Officials: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Oranratmanee, R.; Sachakul, V. Streets as Public Spaces in Southeast Asia: Case Studies of Thai Pedestrian Streets. J. Urban Des. 2014, 19, 211–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hidayati, I.; Tan, W.; Yamu, C. How gender differences and perceptions of safety shape urban mobility in Southeast Asia. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 73, 155–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pongprasert, P.; Kubota, H. Switching from motorcycle taxi to walking: A case study of transit station access in Bangkok, Thailand. IATSS Res. 2017, 41, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chalermpong, S.; Wibowo, S.S. Transit station access trips and factors affecting propensity to walk to transit stations in Bangkok, Thailand. J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 2007, 7, 1806–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boonon, N.; Limpaseni, W. Sidewalk Development for Convenient Bangkok Metropolitan: A Case Study of Sidewalk Along BTS Light Green Line. Vajira Med. J. 2020, 64, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pongprasert, P.; Kubota, H. TOD residents’ attitudes toward walking to transit station: A case study of transit-oriented developments (TODs) in Bangkok, Thailand. J. Mod. Transp. 2018, 27, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nirathron, N.; Yasmeen, G. Street vending management in Bangkok: The need to adapt to a changing environment. J. Public Space 2019, 4, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tangworamongkon, C. Street Vending in Bangkok: Legal and Policy Frameworks, Livelihood Challenges and Collective Responses; WIEGO Law and Informality Resources: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Musigakama, P. The Commodification of Public Spaces on Khao San Road. Nakhara: J. Environ. Des. Plan. 2019, 17, 81–96. [Google Scholar]
- Nirathron, N. Fighting Poverty from the Street: A Survey of Street Food Vendors in Bangkok; International Labour Office: Bangkok, Thailand, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Niitani, Y. History of Sidewalks in Japan—A Study on Transition of Structural Standard. IATSS Rev. 1981, 7, 4–14. [Google Scholar]
- Florez, J.; Muniz, J.; Portugal, L. Pedestrian Quality of Service: Lessons from Maracanã Stadium. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 160, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nakamura, K. Experimental analysis of walkability evaluation using virtual reality application. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2020, 239980832098074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Cengage: Hampshire, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Bangkok Experiment | Nagoya Experiment | |
---|---|---|
Familiar | (1) Siam square district, Bangkok (2) Silom street, Bangkok | (1) Sakae Hisaya-odori (south), Nagoya (2) Sakae Hisaya-odori (north), Nagoya |
Unfamiliar | (3) Chula Soi 5, Bangkok (4) Sakae Otsu-dori, Nagoya (5) Queen street mall, Brisbane | (3) Asoke Station Skywalk, Bangkok (4) Soi Sukhumvit 23, Bangkok (5) Queen street mall, Brisbane |
Bangkok Experiment | Nagoya Experiment | |
---|---|---|
Street design | Width | Width |
Pavement | Street parking | |
Less pollution | Traffic volume | |
Cleanliness | Green | |
Nearby activity | Street activity | |
Walking needs | Smoothness | Legible |
No obstacle | No obstacle | |
Traffic safety | Cross safety | |
Security | Security | |
Shading or cover | Protection | |
Pleasure | Vibrant Original | |
Walking willingness | Walk preference | Walk for transit Walk for shop |
Variables | Descriptions | Mean | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Width | I am satisfied with width of the walkway. | 5.31 | 1.912 | −0.914 | −0.446 |
Smooth | I am satisfied with smoothness of the walkway. | 5.41 | 1.679 | −0.998 | −0.053 |
Clean | I am satisfied with cleanliness of the walkway. | 5.39 | 1.728 | −0.997 | −0.078 |
Pavement | I am satisfied with pavement material of the walkway. | 5.67 | 1.388 | −1.050 | 0.481 |
Obstacle | I am satisfied that the walkway has no obstacle. | 4.82 | 2.010 | −0.567 | −1.002 |
Shading/cover | I am satisfied with shade or covering for the walkway. | 4.72 | 1.690 | −0.340 | −0.706 |
Less pollution | I am satisfied that the walkway has low pollution. | 4.61 | 1.830 | −0.390 | −0.886 |
Traffic safety | I feel safe with respect to nearby traffic. | 4.99 | 1.765 | −0.686 | −0.459 |
Security | I feel secure with respect to crime. | 4.77 | 1.574 | −0.414 | −0.437 |
Nearby activity | I am satisfied with the nearby activities. | 5.06 | 1.552 | −0.586 | −0.312 |
Pleasure | I will feel pleasure if I walk on this walkway. | 5.11 | 1.794 | −0.863 | −0.266 |
Prefer to walk | I will prefer to walk than travel by car if I walk on this walkway. | 5.00 | 1.878 | −0.793 | −0.482 |
Components | Communalities | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | ||
Smooth | 0.880 | 0.333 | 0.885 |
Clean | 0.871 | 0.362 | 0.890 |
No obstacle | 0.838 | 0.387 | 0.853 |
Shading/cover | 0.409 | 0.651 | 0.592 |
Traffic safety | 0.316 | 0.861 | 0.841 |
Security | 0.335 | 0.820 | 0.785 |
Pleasure | 0.690 | 0.565 | 0.795 |
Cronbach’s Alpha | Construct Reliability | Average Variance Extracted | |
---|---|---|---|
Lower-level need | 0.931 | 0.898 | 0.745 |
Higher-level need | 0.871 | 0.820 | 0.539 |
Variable | Description | Mean | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Width | The walkway is wide. | 4.53 | 1.75 | −0.48 | −0.76 |
Street parking | Many bicycles or motorcycles are parked on the walkway. | 4.08 | 1.70 | −0.07 | −0.77 |
Traffic | Traffic is heavy on the driveway. | 4.26 | 1.63 | −0.21 | −0.66 |
Green | The walkway is green. | 3.48 | 1.55 | 0.19 | −0.68 |
Street activity | Many activities take place on the walkway. | 3.55 | 1.40 | 0.07 | −0.29 |
Legible | The street is legible. | 4.65 | 1.43 | −0.44 | −0.35 |
No obstacle | The street has less obstacle. | 4.19 | 1.64 | −0.25 | −0.85 |
Traffic safety | The street is safe for crossing the driveway. | 4.09 | 1.57 | −0.13 | −0.72 |
Security | The street is secure with respect to crime. | 4.21 | 1.30 | −0.31 | −0.03 |
Protection | The street is protected from weather. | 3.81 | 1.54 | −0.06 | −0.55 |
Vibrant | The street is vibrant. | 4.65 | 1.31 | −0.49 | 0.01 |
Original | The street is original. | 4.36 | 1.26 | −0.09 | 0.14 |
Transit walk | I am willing to walk for transit use. | 3.79 | 1.44 | 0.04 | −0.47 |
Shop walk | I am willing to walk for shopping. | 4.52 | 1.43 | −0.58 | 0.02 |
Component | Communalities | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | ||
Legible | 0.78 | 0.00 | 0.61 |
No obstacle | 0.90 | −0.07 | 0.81 |
Safety | 0.84 | 0.07 | 0.71 |
Security | 0.72 | −0.02 | 0.52 |
Protection | 0.15 | 0.55 | 0.33 |
Vibrant | −0.14 | 0.87 | 0.78 |
Original | −0.04 | 0.68 | 0.46 |
Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted | |
---|---|---|---|
Lower-Level Need | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.68 |
Higher-Level Need | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.47 |
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
Vichiensan, V.; Nakamura, K. Walkability Perception in Asian Cities: A Comparative Study in Bangkok and Nagoya. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6825. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126825
Vichiensan V, Nakamura K. Walkability Perception in Asian Cities: A Comparative Study in Bangkok and Nagoya. Sustainability. 2021; 13(12):6825. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126825
Chicago/Turabian StyleVichiensan, Varameth, and Kazuki Nakamura. 2021. "Walkability Perception in Asian Cities: A Comparative Study in Bangkok and Nagoya" Sustainability 13, no. 12: 6825. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126825