Comparative Analyses of Parameters Influencing Children Pedestrian Behavior in Conflict Zones of Urban Intersections
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Methodology of Field Measurements
2.1.1. Site Selection
2.1.2. Observational Method
2.1.3. Input Parameters
2.2. Data Analyses
2.2.1. Children Pedestrian Speed Analyses
2.2.2. Children’s Pedestrian Speed Depending on Infrastructural Parameters
3. Results
3.1. Statistical Analyses of Data Base
3.1.1. Basic Statistical Analyzes of Observed Databases
3.1.2. Comparison of Databases
3.2. Influential Parameters’ Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- length of pedestrian crosswalk
- age group
- moving in a group.
- children with special needs
- supervision by adults
- mobile—not occupying visual attention
- running.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Transport Safety Council (ECTS). Reducing Child Deaths on European Roads, PIN Flash Report 34. February 2018. Available online: https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/PIN-FLASH_34.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2019).
- World Health Organization (WHO). Ten Strategies for Keeping Children Safe on the Road. 2015. Available online: https://www.who.int/roadsafety/week/2015/Ten_Strategies_For_Keeping_Children_Safe_on_the_Road.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2019).
- Ministarstvo Unutarnjih Poslova RH. Bilten o Sigurnosti Cestovnog Prometa 2018. 2019. Available online: https://mup.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2019/bilten_promet_2018.pdfBilten (accessed on 14 November 2019). (In Croatian)
- ISTAT. Incidenti Stradali. Anno 2017. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/files//2018/07/Incidenti-stradali_2017.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2019). (In Italian).
- Distefano, N.; Leonardi, S.; Pulvirenti, G. Home-school Travel: Analysis of Factors Affecting Italian Parents’ Mode Choice. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2019, 7, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISTAT. Vanno a Scuola da Soli. Anno 2014. 2015. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/203475 (accessed on 20 November 2019).
- Shaw, B.; Bicket, M.; Elliott, B.; Fagan-Watson, B.; Mocca, E.; Hillman, M. Children’s Independent Mobility: An International Comparison and Recommendations for Action; Policy Studies Institute: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ištoka Otković, I. A Model to Predict Children’s Reaction Time at Signalized Intersections. Safety 2020, 6, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ampofo-Boateng, K.; Thomson, J.A. Children’s perception of safety and danger on the road. Br. J. Psychol. 1991, 82, 487–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gitelman, V.; Levi, S.; Carmel, R.; Korchatov, A.; Hakkert, S. Exploring patterns of child pedestrian behaviors at urban intersections. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 122, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barton, B.K.; Schwebel, D.C. The roles of age, gender, inhibitory control, and parental supervision in children’s pedestrian safety. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2007, 32, 517–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, H.; Wu, M.; Cheng, X.; Schwebel, D.C. The road user behaviours of Chinese adolescents: Data from China and a comparison with adolescents in other countries. Ann. Glob. Health 2019, 85, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schwebel, D.C.; Wu, Y.; Swanson, M.; Cheng, P.; Ning, P.; Cheng, X.; Hu, G. Child pedestrian street-crossing behaviors outside a primary school: Developing observational methodologies and data from a case study in Changsha, China. J. Transp. Health 2018, 8, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holm, A.; Jaani, J.; Eensoo, D.; Piksööt, J. Pedestrian behaviour of 6th grade Estonian students: Implications of social factors and accident-prevention education at school. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 52, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agran, P.F.; Winn, D.G.; Anderson, C.L.; Tran, C.; Del Valle, C.P. The role of the physical and traffic environment in child pedestrian injuries. Pediatrics 1996, 98, 1096–1103. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, G.; Rodríguez, D.A.; Khattak, A.J. The role of the built environment in explaining relationships between perceived and actual pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2009, 41, 692–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, I.; Norton, R.; Jackson, R.; Dunn, R.; Hassall, I. Effect of environmental factors on risk of injury of child pedestrians by motor vehicles: A case-control study. BMJ 1995, 310, 91–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Abdel-Aty, M.; Chundi, S.S.; Lee, C. Geo-spatial and log-linear analysis of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes involving school-aged children. J. Saf. Res. 2007, 38, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fridman, L.; Pitt, T.; Rothman, L.; Howard, A.; Hagel, B. Driver and road characteristics associated with child pedestrian injuries. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 131, 248–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferenchak, N.N.; Marshall, W.E. Redefining the child pedestrian safety paradigm: Identifying high fatality concentrations in urban areas. Inj. Prev. 2017, 23, 364–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ivan, K.; Benedek, J.; Ciobanu, S.M. School-Aged Pedestrian–Vehicle Crash Vulnerability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- DaCoTA. Children in Road Traffic; Deliverable 4.8c of the European Commission FP7 Project; DaCoTA: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Alonso, F.; Esteban, C.; Useche, S.; Colomer, N. Effect of Road Safety Education on Road Risky Behaviors of Spanish Children and Adolescents: Findings from a National Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schwebel, D.C.; Davis, A.L.; O’Neal, E.E. Child pedestrian injury: A review of behavioral risks and preventive strategies. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2012, 6, 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mah, S.K.; Nettlefold, L.; Macdonald, H.M.; Winters, M.; Race, D.; Voss, C.; McKay, H.A. Does parental support influence children’s active school travel? Prev. Med. Rep. 2017, 6, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Škunca, S. Koliko su Hrvatski Gradovi Doista Veliki? Prostorno Planiranje kao Čimbenik Razvoja u Županijama, Zbornik Radova; 2015; pp. 183–191. Available online: https://zavod.pgz.hr/pdf/9_Srdan_SKUNCA.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2019). (In Croatian)
- Ott, R.L.; Longnecker, M. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Duxbury: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Montgomery, D.C. Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Bonett, D.G.; Seier, E. Confidence interval for a coefficient of dispersion in nonnormal distributions. Biom. J. 2006, 48, 144–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cahoy, D.O. A bootstrap test for equality of variances. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2010, 54, 2306–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gastwirth, J.L.; Gel, Y.R.; Miao, W. The Impact of Levene’s Test of Equality of Variances on Statistical Theory and Practice. Stat. Sci. 2009, 24, 343–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ostertagova, E.; Ostertag, O.; Kováč, J. Methodology and application of the Kruskal-Wallis test. In Applied Mechanics and Materials; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Freinbach, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 611, pp. 115–120. [Google Scholar]
- Toor, A.; Happer, A.; Overgaard, R.; Johal, R. Real world walking speeds of young pedestrians. SAE Trans. 2001, 110, 1106–1114. [Google Scholar]
- Vaughan, R.; Bain, J. Acceleration and speeds of young pedestrians: Phase II. SAE Trans. 2000, 109, 1264–1287. [Google Scholar]
- Ištoka Otković, I.; Deluka-Tibljaš, A.; Šurdonja, S. Validation of the calibration methodology of the micro-simulation traffic model. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 45, 684–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Length (m) | Width (m) | Cycle Length (s) | Pedestrian Green Time (s) | ||
Crosswalk 1, 3 | 12.5 | 3 | 84 | 49 | |
Crosswalk 2 | 9.5 | 2.5 | 84 | 49 | |
Crosswalk 4 | 10 | 2.5 | 84 | 49 |
Length (m) | Width (m) | Cycle Length (s) | Pedestrian Green Time (s) | ||
Crosswalk 1 | 7 | 3 | 90 | 50 | |
Crosswalk 3 | 9.3 | 4.5 | 90 | 50 | |
Crosswalk 2, 4 | 10.5 | 3.1 | 90 | 20 | |
Crosswalk 1, 3 | 14 | 3.1 | 90 | 13 | |
Crosswalk 2 | 9.2 | 2.5 | 90 | 52 | |
Crosswalk 4 | 9.2 | 2.2 | 90 | 52 |
Length (m) | Width (m) | Cycle Length (s) | Pedestrian Green Time (s) | ||
Crosswalk 1 | 16 | 4 | 80 | 12 | |
Crosswalk 2 | 16.5 | 4 | 80 | 12 | |
Crosswalk 1 | 7 | 4 | 100 | 13 | |
Crosswalk 2 | 10 | 4 | 100 | 13 | |
Crosswalk 1 | 10 | 4 | 80 | 9 | |
Crosswalk 2 | 10 | 4 | 80 | 9 |
Parameter–Independent Variable | Explanation/Measure | Type of Variable | |
---|---|---|---|
I-1 | length of pedestrian crosswalk | measured from curb to curb meter [m] | numerical |
I-2 | width of pedestrian crosswalk | width of white marked crossing lines meter [m] | numerical |
I-3 | green time for pedestrians | seconds [s] | numerical |
I-4 | traffic signal cycle length | seconds [s] | numerical |
I-5 | number of children on pedestrian crosswalk | for every pedestrian green light cycle | numerical |
I-6 | total number of pedestrians on pedestrian crosswalk | for every pedestrian green light cycle children included | numerical |
I-7 | age groups | AG1 ≤ 7 years old AG2 8–11 years old; AG3 ≥ 12 years old. | categorical |
I-8 | gender | girl→0, boys→1, for mixed groups (number of boys/total number of children) | categorical |
I-9 | children with special needs | no→0, minor interference→0.5 yes→1 | categorical |
1-10 | movement in a group | movement of 2–5 children together | categorical |
1-11 | supervision by adults | children in company of parents or other adult no→0; yes→1 | categorical |
I-12 | mobile-messages/internet | occupying visual attention no→0; yes→1 | categorical |
I-13 | mobile–talking | not occupying visual attention no→0; yes→1 | categorical |
I-14 | running | it implies movement when both legs are above pavement level no→0; yes→1 | categorical |
Location | Gender | Crossing in a Group/Alone | Supervised by Adults | Children Age (Years) | Talking on a Mobile Phone | Using Mobile Phone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Enna | 54% W | 89% alone | 45% NO | AG1 (<7) | 27% | 94% NO | 91% NO |
46% M | 11% group | 55% YES | AG2 (8–11) | 31% | 6% YES | 9% YES | |
AG3 (12–15) | 42% | ||||||
Osijek | 47% W | 75% alone | 94% NO | AG1 (<7) | 8% | 94% NO | 93% NO |
53% M | 26% group | 6% YES | AG2 (8–11) | 29% | 6% YES | 7% YES | |
AG3 (12–15) | 63% | ||||||
Rijeka | 51% W | 64% alone | 89% NO | AG1 (<7) | 6% | 99% NO | 97% NO |
49% M | 36% group | 11% YES | AG2 (8–11) | 39% | 1% YES | 3% YES | |
AG3 (12–15) | 55% |
Children Pedestrian Speed (m/s) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whole Sample | Individual Movement | Crossing in Group | |||||
Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Mixed Group | |
Enna | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.73 | 0.64 | 0.71 |
SD = 0.14 | SD = 0.13 | SD = 0.14 | SD = 0.12 | - | - | - | |
(n = 162) | (n = 138) | (n = 123) | (n = 144) | (n = 7) | (n = 10) | (n = 16) | |
Osijek | 1.39 | 1.35 | 1.45 | 1.41 | 1.14 | 1.17 | 1.096 |
SD = 0.30 | SD = 0.29 | SD = 0.29 | SD = 0.27 | SD = 0.19 | SD = 0.27 | - | |
(n = 152) | (n = 148) | (n = 117) | (n = 90) | (n = 31) | (n = 34) | (n = 10) | |
Rijeka | 1.57 | 1.60 | 1.70 | 1.75 | 1.35 | 1.40 | 1.38 |
SD = 0.43 | SD = 0.39 | SD = 0.43 | SD = 0.43 | SD = 0.22 | SD = 0.37 | - | |
(n = 140) | (n = 160) | (n = 83) | (n = 81) | (n = 25) | (n = 49) | (n = 29) |
Age Group Mean Speed | |||
---|---|---|---|
AG1 | AG2 | AG3 | |
Enna | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.86 |
SD = 0.14, n = 82 | SD = 0.11, n = 93 | SD = 0.14, n = 125 | |
Osijek | 1.23 | 1.37 | 1.37 |
SD = 0.24, n = 23 | SD = 0.36, n = 88 | SD = 0.26, n = 189 | |
Rijeka | 1.45 | 1.62 | 1.58 |
SD = 0.288, n = 19 | SD = 0.44, n = 116 | SD = 0.40, n = 165 |
Pedestrian Crosswalk Length (m) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7 m | 9.2–9.5 m | 10–10.5 m | 12.5 m | 14 m | 16–17 m | ||
Enna | Speed [m/s] gt [s] | 0.74 | 0.77 | 0.88 | |||
49 | 49 | 49 | |||||
(n = 57) | (n = 124) | (n = 119) | |||||
Osijek | Speed [m/s] gt [s] | 1.12 | 1.35 | 1.35 | 1.53 | ||
50 | 50 | 20 | 13 | ||||
(n = 46) | (n = 106) | (n = 73) | (n = 75) | ||||
Rijeka | Speed [m/s] gt [s] | 1.47 | 1.59 | 1.6 | |||
13 | 9 | 12 | |||||
(n = 20) | (n = 211) | (n = 69) |
N | Mean | SD | Median | Min | Max | Variance | AD | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rijeka | 300 | 1.59 | 0.41 | 1.53 | 0.82 | 3.24 | 0.17 | 8.114 | <0.005 |
Osijek | 300 | 1.36 | 0.30 | 1.35 | 0.53 | 2.37 | 0.09 | 0.913 | 0.020 |
Enna | 300 | 0.81 | 0.14 | 0.79 | 0.44 | 1.23 | 0.02 | 1.798 | <0.005 |
Enna Rijeka | Enna Osijek | Rijeka Osijek | |
---|---|---|---|
Ratio of St. Dev. | 0.340 | 0.467 | 1.376 |
Ratio of variances | 0.116 | 0.218 | 1.893 |
Bonett’s method | 80.36 | 97.57 | 12.48 |
p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Levene’s method | 98.35 | 138.65 | 5.15 |
p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.024 |
Independent Variable | Description | Rijeka | Osijek | Enna | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H | P | H | P | H | P | ||
I-1 | length of pedestrian crosswalk [m] | 18.47 | 0.004 | 57.95 | 0.000 | 52.35 | 0.000 |
I-2 | width of pedestrian crosswalk [m] | - | - | 6.79 | 0.147 | - | - |
I-3 | green time for pedestrians [s] | 3.11 | 0.212 | 37.05 | 0.000 | - | - |
I-4 | traffic signal cycle lengths [s] | 0.00 | 0.99 | - | - | - | - |
I-5 | number of children on crossing | - | - | 27.06 | 0.000 | - | - |
I-6 | total number of pedestrians | - | - | 23.89 | 0.001 | - | - |
II-7-1 | age group 1 | 4.33 | 0.037 | 7.71 | 0.005 | 10.15 | 0.001 |
II-7-2 | age group 2 | 0.93 | 0.335 | 0.10 | 0.718 | 14.32 | 0.000 |
II-7-3 | age group 3 | 0.00 | 0.997 | 3.36 | 0.067 | 41.34 | 0.000 |
II-8 | gender | 0.34 | 0.557 | 1.27 | 0.259 | 6.75 | 0.009 |
II-9 | children with special needs | - | - | 7.87 | 0.005 | 16.69 | 0.000 |
II-10-1 | movement alone | 53.54 | 0.000 | 63.54 | 0.000 | 28.71 | 0.000 |
II-10-2 | movement in a group of 2 | 8.09 | 0.004 | 16.46 | 0.000 | 24.15 | 0.000 |
II-10-3 | movement in a group of 3 | 19.47 | 0.000 | 36.00 | 0.000 | 4.82 | 0.028 |
II-10-4 | movement in a group of 4 | 27.47 | 0.000 | 5.75 | 0.016 | - | - |
II-10-5 | movement in a group of 5 | - | - | 1.75 | 0.186 | - | - |
II-11 | supervision by adults | 8.14 | 0.004 | 3.02 | 0.082 | 15.23 | 0.000 |
II-12 | Mobile—occupies visual attention | 1.43 | 0.231 | 6.46 | 0.011 | 0.11 | 0.741 |
II-13 | Mobile—does not occupy visual attention | 0.55 | 0.458 | 4.24 | 0.040 | 12.99 | 0.000 |
II-14 | running | 73.38 | 0.000 | 32.17 | 0.000 | - | - |
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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Deluka-Tibljaš, A.; Ištoka Otković, I.; Campisi, T.; Šurdonja, S. Comparative Analyses of Parameters Influencing Children Pedestrian Behavior in Conflict Zones of Urban Intersections. Safety 2021, 7, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety7010005
Deluka-Tibljaš A, Ištoka Otković I, Campisi T, Šurdonja S. Comparative Analyses of Parameters Influencing Children Pedestrian Behavior in Conflict Zones of Urban Intersections. Safety. 2021; 7(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety7010005
Chicago/Turabian StyleDeluka-Tibljaš, Aleksandra, Irena Ištoka Otković, Tiziana Campisi, and Sanja Šurdonja. 2021. "Comparative Analyses of Parameters Influencing Children Pedestrian Behavior in Conflict Zones of Urban Intersections" Safety 7, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety7010005