**3. Results**

### *3.1. Data Analysis through the Use of Descriptive Statistics*

Human factors related to walking are the subject of numerous studies in the literature and are increased comparing with other studies on other road users [74,75]. In general, the functional geometrical characteristics of an infrastructure can be related only to a small part of the pedestrians' behavior in urban areas. Understanding pedestrians' behavior in urban areas can lead to significant improvements in the design and planning of pedestrian road and tra ffic environment, and consequently in the comfort and safety of pedestrians [76,77]. The questionnaire was designed aiming to acquire socio-demographic data, walking aptitude data, and data related with the perception of the risk from the point of view of safety, comfort, and confusion (chaos). Each question allowed only one answer expressed through Likert scales [78,79] or bivariate choice or multivariate choice. In particular, the Likert scale made possible to express a judgment instead of the bivariate and multivariate choice of selecting between two or more options. Section 1 of the survey focused on the evaluation of socio-demographic data i.e., gender, age, and work. The investigated sample shows a higher percentage of men than women as shown in Table 2.


**Table 2.** Distribution of respondents based on gender.

The age that most characterized the sample is between 18 and 24 years of age and followed by the age group 25–39 as shown in Table 3.


**Table 3.** Distribution of respondents based on age group.

The age groups have a close connection with the work activity, in fact the highest percentage of users interviewed were students as shown in Table 4.


**Table 4.** Distribution of respondents based on profession group.


Section 2 of the questionnaire focuses on the frequency of walking on the monitored routes and the selection. In fact, Table 5 shows how often the respondents use the road network.



Table 6 indicates the respondents' preference regarding the four itineraries, showing a slight predominance in the use of the IT4 itinerary.


**Table 6.** Distribution of respondents according to the frequency of use of each route.

A synthetic judgment pertaining to the global road network was examined through the definition of perceived type of level of service. This parameter incorporates a general vision of the movement both from the point of view of safety and of the hypothesis of congestion that can increase the travel time. The perceived Level of Service (LOS) of the users stands at an average value equal to LOS C as shown in Table 7. Only 8.6% of respondents rated the LOS with A or B i.e., optimal service levels. This result proves the uncertainty of users regarding the overall quality of the infrastructure.

**Table 7.** Distribution of respondents according to the level of service of the infrastructure.


Finally, through a judgment on a Likert scale, it was expressed on the possibility of being able to move on foot along the monitored road network. The predominant judgment in this case was encouraging and included between positive and very positive, as shown in Table 8.



### *3.2. Multi-Criteria Analysis through the Use of AHP Method*

Therefore, the assessment of the perception of safety within the itineraries was connected to the combination of pedestrian and vehicular flow with reference to both pedestrian crossings and the tra ffic light cycle. The feeling of comfort was associated with the presence of sidewalks and handrails, in addition to good lighting.

The perception of chaos, on the other hand, has been correlated to a hypothetical congestion of pedestrian and vehicular tra ffic and to the increase in travel time useful for arriving from origin to destination. All these objectives are often connected to a subjective component of the evaluation of the parameters, that is, judgments and opinions with the objective data or the measurement. The AHP was applied three times using di fferent input data for each column. Table 9 presents the final rankings

of each itinerary based on the comfort, the safety, and the confusion (annoyance) of the user. The three parameters (comfort, safety, and confusion) constituted the basic criteria that the respondents took into consideration in order to compare the four itineraries. The ranking of the itineraries in each AHP derives from attributing a weight in each one based on their importance. Additionally, the Consistency Ratio (CR) of each AHP was generated. The CR of an AHP represents the inconsistencies between the responses of the users in a single questionnaire. As mentioned before, if the CR is lower than 10%, the inconsistencies are considered acceptable.


**Table 9.** Results of the Multi-Criteria Analysis through the use of AHP method.

As shown in Table 9, the first two AHP analyses give similar results as they represent two positive features (comfort and safety) for the users of the infrastructure. Actually, these two analyses produce the same ranking of itineraries with small di fferences on their percentages. Itinerary 4 seems to be preferred by the users based on these two characteristics. Itinerary 3 can be characterized as the least preferable itinerary with Itinerary 2 and Itinerary 1 coming second and third respectively. On the other hand, the third AHP analysis, which represents the confusion, confirms the results of the other two analyses placing Itinerary 1 at the first place and Itinerary 4 at fourth place concerning the confusion that the respondents feel during the use of the road network. Itinerary 3 is considered to be second in the ranking of confusion with a very small percentage di fference comparing with the percentage of Itinerary 1 followed by Itinerary 2, which seems to create less confusion to the users of the infrastructure.

The design of an urban context refers to multiple interests, often conflicting, that converge on the road space: those of mobility in its various forms, those of residents, traders, passers-by, without forgetting the needs related to environmental protection (air and noise) and architectural and urban quality. The concept of the road space must guarantee and, if necessary, restore a balance between these interests and needs.

According to the questionnaires that were collected during the survey in the city of Rijeka, 54% of the sample were males; therefore the distribution of the sample between males and females is almost even. The vast majority (90%) were students and employees under 40 years of age. Almost 40% of the sample uses the infrastructure at least 4 times per week, while 25% avoids the use of the infrastructure and uses it seldom; less than 1 time per week. The respondents di ffered widely on which route they use the most. "Itinerary 4" (IT4) is used slightly more than the rest (31.4%) and the percentages of the four itineraries are very close. Additionally, the highest percentage of the respondents (84.3%) evaluates the level of service of the infrastructures with C and D (in a scale of A to F). Furthermore, 94.3% assesses the possibility of using the infrastructure to go for a walk from positive to absolutely positive. The slight preference of pedestrians towards "Itinerary 4" is confirmed by the Multi-Criteria Analysis, which was produced using the AHP method. The routes were compared in all possible pairs by the users. The results of the comparisons were used as data for the AHP in regard to the safety and comfort of the users. Based on the results, "Itinerary 4" was placed first, scoring 30.4% in comfort and 36% in safety, followed by itineraries 2, 1, and 3. It is worth mentioning that both IT4 and IT3 are shorter that the rest. In the last AHP, the results of the comparisons that were used as data for the AHP concerned annoyance. IT1 acquired the most weight (29.6%), followed by IT3, IT2, and IT4. This work is a first step of investigation which will be subsequently expanded with a second step of investigation and comparison of data in statistical terms. The infrastructure examined is heavily used on an everyday basis by some participants, but by others it is seldom used. The route with the underpass is slightly more used than the other, but as it is shorter than other two routes (IT 1 and IT 2), and safer than the third route (IT 3), it is actually surprising that the preference is not higher. Even more so, as it ranked as the best by AHP in the category of "annoyance." This shows that the use of this route is impacted by other factors, which should be further analyzed.
