Evaluating the capability of walkability audit tools for

Accepted Manuscript Title: Evaluating the capability of walkability audit tools for assessing sidewalks Authors: Mahdi Aghaabbasi, Mehdi Moeinaddini, Muhammad Zaly Shah, Zohreh Asadi Shekari, Mehdi Arjomand Kermani PII: DOI: Reference:

S2210-6707(17)31236-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.001 SCS 873

To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

12-9-2017 5-11-2017 1-12-2017

Please cite this article as: Aghaabbasi, Mahdi., Moeinaddini, Mehdi., Zaly Shah, Muhammad., Asadi Shekari, Zohreh., & Kermani, Mehdi Arjomand., Evaluating the capability of walkability audit tools for assessing sidewalks.Sustainable Cities and Society https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.001 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Evaluating the capability of walkability audit tools for assessing sidewalks Mahdi Aghaabbasia, Mehdi Moeinaddinib*, Muhammad Zaly Shahb, Zohreh Asadi Shekarib, Mehdi Arjomand Kermania a

Deapartment of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Kerman,

b

IP T

Iran

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti

SC R

Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia * Corresponding author: [email protected]

U

Dr. Mahdi Aghaabbasi is a Senior Lecturer at Department of Urbanism, Islamic Azad

N

University. He is interested in planning for pedestrians and promoting walkability. Dr. Mehdi Moeinaddini is a Senior Lecturer at Department of Urban and Regional Planning,

M

A

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. He is interested in transport safety and pedestrian facilities. Dr. Muhammad Zaly Shah is an Associate Professor at Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. He is interested in public transportation and

TE D

pedestrian facilities.

Dr. Zohreh Asadi Shakeri is a researcher at Department of Urban and Regional Planning,

EP

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. She is interested in non-motorized trips and walkability. Mehdi Arjomand Kermani is a Master Student at Department of Architecture, Islamic Azad

A

CC

University. He is interested in urban health and walking facilities.

HIGHLIGHTS  We have assessed the capability of walkability assessment tools regarding the sidewalk assessment  The tools have been assessed based on four main dimensions

Even though assessing sidewalks is an integral component of walkability assessment tools, no single study exists that adequately covers the relevance of existing walkability audits for sidewalk assessment. In this paper, an in-depth review of walkability audit tools is conducted. The primary objective of this study is to determine whether the existing tools consider factors such as safety,

IP T

attractiveness, disability issues and path conditions that are essential for sidewalk assessment. This review shows that a limited number of audit tools consider

disability issues, safety, and attractiveness. The tools reviewed mainly use path

SC R

condition factors. In conclusion, recommendations are made for future

walkability audits that focus on accessibility factors, as well as micro-scale design factors.

U

Keywords: walkability, audit tool, sidewalk assessment, safety, attractiveness,

N

accessibility, sidewalk design factor

A

Subject classification codes: urban planning, social science, public health,

M

transportation planning

TE D

Introduction

Walking is one of the most favoured and widespread types of physical activity (De Cambra, 2012; Guo, 2009; Badland and Schofield, 2005; Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2003; Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2002; Moeinaddini et al., 2013; Moeinaddini et al.,

EP

2014). Walking is favoured because it is cheap and universally available to everyone. Previous studies have reported that low levels of walking among the population

CC

contribute to health problems such as obesity (Larsen, 2014; Bungum et al., 2009; McDonald, 2007). Findings from research on health and urban planning show that the

A

availability of sidewalks in neighbourhoods is positively associated with high levels of physical activity, particularly walking (Rodriguez et al., 2008; De Vries et al., 2007; Huston et al., 2003). Sidewalks are important components of any transportation network. Sidewalks should provide residents with safe, attractive, healthy, and inclusive walking conditions. Sidewalk features that are conducive for walking include factors such as sufficient street lighting, path width, steep cross slopes, well-maintained surfaces, buffering and benches and resting areas (Van Cauwenberg et al., 2012; Addy

et al., 2004). The influence of environmental factors on walking has contributed to an abundance of tools measuring the effects of built environmental factors on walking levels (Borst et al., 2009; Cunningham et al., 2005a; Owen et al., 2004b; Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2003). Data collection is carried out using integrated techniques such as the geographic information system (GIS), questionnaires (community perception of their environment) and audit tools that focus on the functional and physical

IP T

environment, land use, density, and other related factors. Audit tools are helpful in audits on walkability.

SC R

Using questionnaires is a common approach to capture people’s perception of their walking and built environment experiences. Since sidewalk assessment deals with standards and specifications of sidewalk design, assessing people’s perception is not sufficient to illustrate sidewalk shortcomings. GIS measures and audit tools can

U

objectively be used to assess sidewalks. However, GIS has some serious drawbacks and

N

limitations such as inaccuracy and incomplete data (Brownson et al., 2009). Therefore,

pedestrian environmental assessment.

A

this study focuses on current walkability audit tools as the most common method of

M

In general, an audit is broadly defined as “a methodical examination to both quantitatively and qualitatively identify deficiencies against recognized standards to

TE D

propose solutions” (Abley et al., 2010). Walking suitability assessment instruments can provide community members and local planning staff with systematic data to identify streets in need of design improvements (Emery et al., 2003). Audits are easy to use and interpret and can be administered by a trained auditor.

EP

Sidewalk users are very diverse, from non-disabled people to people with disability. More than one billion people around the world suffer from different types of

CC

disability (WHO, 2017). The growing number of disabled people and the diversity of sidewalk users support the need for paying special attention to people with disabilities

A

in sidewalk design and assessment. For instance, it would be very helpful for people with disability if special facilities such as wheelchair-accessible drinking fountains, tactile pavement, curb ramps at intersections and accessible crosswalk signal buttons are considered in design. While the diversity of the users is appreciated from the health and urban planning standpoint, limited walkability assessment tools consider people with disabilities, as well as other engaged populations (Troped et al., 2006; Kihl et al., 2005).

Considering the above issues, it is important to determine whether the existing walkability assessment tools consider disabled people in sidewalk assessment. Numerous studies have reviewed walkability audits of community walking and have highlighted challenges in current research, which include theoretical models and applicability for various ranges of populations (Asadi-Shekari et al., 2013b; Owen et al., 2004a; Moudon and Lee, 2003). Although extensive reviews have been carried out on built environment instruments concerning community physical activity, no single

IP T

study exists that adequately covers the relevance of existing walkability audits for sidewalk assessment.

SC R

Considering the inadequacy of previous studies on the relevance of walkability

audit tools for sidewalk assessment, it is important to determine whether the existing audit tools are capable of assessing sidewalks. This paper reviews published walkability

U

audit tools to determine their strength for sidewalk assessment.

N

Method

The search strategy of this review involved identification of citations and tools

A

published in full research articles, review articles, and design guidelines. Databases

M

were Google Scholar, Web of Science, Active Living Research, and Medline. Keywords included walkability, measurement, assessment, tool, instrument, built environment,

TE D

physical activity, and sidewalk. Some tools have been excluded because they focused entirely on collecting data regarding walking behaviour and trip level or lacked sufficient information regarding tool development and implementation (e.g., psychometric information). Considering exclusion criteria, the tool sample was

EP

narrowed from 21 to 10 tools published between 2002 and 2014. Table 1 is a list of selected audit tools, which were reviewed according to the following dimensions.

CC

The final sample comprised audit tools that specifically focus on assessing the

built environment for walkability. Each of the tools was reviewed according to the

A

following dimensions: (1) accessible design factors, (2) safety design factors, (3) attractive design factors and (4) sidewalk path condition. Published evidence and interviews with experts identified the above dimensions along with some indicators within the dimensions. The assessment tools, which were developed to assess microscale pedestrian environments, used different types of sidewalk facilities as indicators to measure the above dimensions. For instance, tactile pavement, accessible drinking fountains, and curb ramps are widely used to assess sidewalk accessibility

(Aghaabbasi et al., 2017; Asadi-Shekari et al., 2014; Asadi-Shekari et al., 2015a and b). Safety of a sidewalk is broadly measured by indicators such as lighting, seating area, bollards, landscape and trees, and driveways (Aghaabbasi et al., 2017; Clifton et al., 2007; Kihl et al., 2005). Numerous studies attempt to assess sidewalk attractiveness by indicators such as seating areas, drinking fountains, landscape and trees, toilets, trash receptacles, and cleanliness (Aghaabbasi et al., 2017; Rahimiashtiani and Ujang, 2013; Cunningham et al., 2005b). A number of tools attempt to assess the sidewalk path

IP T

condition using indicators such as maintenance, slope, and natural barriers (Clifton et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2005).

SC R

To assess the audits according to the above dimensions, the indicators of each dimension have been identified through various literature reviews including sidewalk

design guidelines and research papers. Figure 1 shows the review dimensions and factors used for assessing the existing audit tools. The objective of this review is to

U

illustrate whether the existing walkability audit tools consider a sidewalk an important

N

part of the transportation network in their assessment; it also provides some

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

recommendations for developing proper walkability assessment tools.

I N U SC R

Table 1. Audits Reviewed Author(s)

Field

Tool development objective

Testing area

Path Environment Audit Tool (PEAT)

Troped et al. (2006)

Health

To determine how trail features may influence use.

Massachusetts, US.

Walking Suitability Assessment Form (WSAF)

Emery et al. (2003)

Health

PIN3 Neighbourhood Audit Instrument

Evenson et al. (2009)

Health

Irvine Minnesota Inventory (I-M)

Boarnet et al. (2006)

Analytic Audit Tool Active Neighbourhood Checklist

M

Chapel Hill, Carolina, US.

North

Urban and rural road segments

To determine constructs to define neighbourhoods using both secondary data collection and primary data collection, through a neighbourhood audit.

Alamance, Chatham, Durham, and Orange Counties, North Carolina, US.

Neighbourhood road segments

Planning

To measure a wide range of built environment characteristics that may be linked to active living.

California Minnesota, US.

Urban street block faces

Brownson et al. (2004b)

Health

To determine the links between street-scale environments and rates of physical activity.

St Louis and Savannah, US.

Urban street segments in higher and lower income neighbourhood

Hoehner (2011)

Planning

To assess key street-level characteristics of the neighbourhood environment that are thought to be linked to physical activity behaviour.

St. Louis, US.

Street segments among areas that varied by socioeconomic level, urbanization, and land use

PT

ED

To assess the walking suitability of sidewalks and the bicycling suitability of roads.

CC E

A

Land use and urbanization pattern Suburban conservation land, urban suburban neighbourhood park, large urban park, suburban rail-trail, rural rail trail, urban linear park with adjacent facilities

A

Tool name

and

I N U SC R

Table 1. (continued) Author(s)

Field

Tool development objective

Testing area

Land use pattern

Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS)

Clifton et al. (2007)

Planning

To collect information about the walking environments and to measure environmental characteristics that influence walking in varied environments in the US.

College Park, US.

Urban streets pathways

Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES)

Pikora et al. (2002)

Health

To measure the physical environmental factors that influence cycling and walking in local neighbourhoods.

Perth, Australia

Urban roads and streets

Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS)

Cain et (2014)

To collect audit data on the pedestrian environment and walkability in neighbourhoods.

San Diego, Seattle, and the Baltimore, US.

Street segments of urban and suburban neighbourhoods

To enable the residents of the University Avenue to assess the condition of the pedestrian environment in their neighbourhood and to determine how they would like to improve their pedestrian environment.

Saint Paul, US.

Station areas around the future Central Corridor LRT stops at the Dale Street and University Avenue intersection and the Fairview Avenue and University Avenue intersection

M

ED al.

Health

PT

CC E

A

Central Corridor Pedestrian Environment

A

Tool name

Tolkan (2008)

Planning

and

urbanization

and

pedestrian

Review Dimensions

Safety Design Factors

Attractiveness Design Factors

Sidewalk Path Condition

1. Accessible drinking fountain 2. Accessible toilet 3. Tactile pavement 4. Curb cut 5. Accessible signage and signals 6. Elevator next to sky-bridge

1. Landscape and trees 2. Signage 3. Bollards 4. Surface and material 5. Lighting 6. Signals

1. Landscape and trees 2. Benches and sitting area 3. Trash receptacles 4. Bollards 5. Effective width of sidewalks 6. Lighting 7. Cleanliness

1. Maintenance 2. Slope 3. Natural barriers

SC R

U

Figure 1. Review Dimensions and Assessment Factors

IP T

Accessible Design Factors

Sidewalk assessment capability appraisal

N

To assess the capability of each tool, first we identified the contributory factors

A

of accessibility, safety, attractiveness, and path condition of the sidewalks (𝑇𝑐𝑓 ). Second,

M

for each dimension of each assessment tool, the sidewalk assessment capability ( 𝐶𝑓𝑖 ) is

TE D

calculated by dividing the total number of factors in each dimension of the tool of interest (𝑇𝑓 ) by the total number of the identified contributory factors in each dimension (𝑇𝑐𝑓 ), then multiplying this number by 100 (Eq.1). The results of capability appraisals

EP

are shown in Tables 2, 4, 5, and 6. A comparison of capability appraisals is presented in

CC

Figure 2.

𝑇

𝐶𝑓𝑖 % = 𝑇 𝑓 × 100 𝑐𝑓

A

where:

𝐶𝑓𝑖 = 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑘 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑓 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑇𝑐𝑓 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑐𝑓 = 6 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝐹𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑒 1)

Eq.1

𝑇𝑐𝑓 = 6 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝐹𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑒 1) 𝑇𝑐𝑓 = 7 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝐹𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑒 1) 𝑇𝑐𝑓 = 3 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑘 𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝐹𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑒 1)

Accessible Design Factors This study reviews whether audits include disability-specific items (accessible design).

IP T

For this purpose, the following definition of “accessible design” is used: “accessible design refers to a design specifically tailored for people with disabilities by meeting

some prescribed codes and considering some specialized designs” (Centre for

SC R

Excellence in Universal Design, 2014; Gamache et al., 2012; Erkiliç, 2011; Story,

1998). Wheelchair accessibility to drinking fountains, car parks, and toilets are among the most important sidewalk design factors to shape an accessible sidewalk to walkingimpaired people (Asadi-Shekari et al., 2014; Centre for Excellence in Universal Design,

U

2014; Asadi-Shekari et al., 2013a; ADA, 2010a; Stark et al., 2007). There is a large

N

number of published studies describing how the tactile pavement, curb cut, and

A

presence of accessible signage and signals make a pedestrian environment, particularly sidewalks, welcoming and accessible for people with disabilities including people with

M

hearing and vision impairments (Monteiro and Campos, 2012; Fearnley et al., 2011; Kochtitzky, 2011; ADA, 2010b; Erlandson, 2010; Baris and Uslu, 2009; Audirac, 2008;

TE D

Handicap International, 2008; Preiser, 2007; Akiyama and Kim, 2005; Kihl et al., 2005; Deichmann et al., 2004; Hanson, 2004; Oxley and Britain, 2002; Kockelman et al., 2000; Rickert and Reeves, 1998).

EP

Table 2 provides information on the sidewalk accessible indicators used in assessing sidewalks by the review audit tools. The rightmost column shows the percent of the existing number of accessible design factors in each tool that corresponds to the

CC

ideal number of accessible design factors (𝐶𝑓𝑖 for accessibility dimension). As can be seen, a limited number of audit tools, such as PEAT, which is described by Troped et al.

A

(2006), have been coded to include items relevant to user disabilities and impairments. Although this tool included some items linked to disability, it was not designed specifically for this population. The sidewalk amenities and facilities that were assessed concerning the disabled included the availability of accessible wheelchair benches and sitting areas, wheelchair-user-accessible bollards (wheelchair can safely pass by the gate or bollard), wheelchair-user-accessible drinking fountains, and wheelchair-user-

accessible toilets. Based on our calculation, PEAT has an acceptable percentage (66.6%) of factors related to accessibility, while ANC used only a single indicator (only 16%) for assessing this accessibility. Table 2. Audit Reviews According to the Accessibility Dimension

PEAT

Total number of sidewalk indicators 17

WSAF

Tool name

𝑪𝒇𝒊 %

𝑻𝒇

PIN3

2

None

0

I-M

7

None

AAT

16

None

ANC

10

PEDS

9

1. Availability of curb cuts or ramps at intersections or driveways None

SPACES

9

None

MAPS

9

None

CCPE

9

None

SC R

0

IP T

66.6

6

1. Availability of wheelchair-accessible benches and seating areas, 2. Availability of wheelchair-accessible bollards, 3. Availability of wheelchair-accessible drinking fountains, 4. Availability of wheelchair-accessible toilets None

0

16 0 0 0 0

M

A

N

U

0

TE D

PEAT: Path Environment Audit Tool; WSAF: Walking Suitability Assessment Form; PIN3: PIN3 Neighbourhood Audit Instrument; I-M: Irvine Minnesota Inventory; AAT: Analytic Audit Tool; ANC: Active Neighbourhood Checklist; PEDS: Pedestrian Environment Data Scan; SPACES: Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan; MAPS: Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes; CCPE: Central Corridor Pedestrian Environment.

EP

Safety Design Factors

Safety design factors refer to those features of the environment that can reduce the risk

CC

of pedestrians falling due to slippery conditions, the risk of conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, and the fear of crime (crime prevention) (Haans and de Kort,

A

2012; Evenson et al., 2009; Painter, 1996). Table 3 shows the safety design factors and their contribution.

Table 3. Contributory factors to different types of safety Safety type

Specification(s) (Studies)

Landscape trees

Safety traffic crime

from and

a) Create buffer between pedestrian and vehicles b) Help to deter crime (Hernandez, 2013; Samarasekara et al., 2013; Cui et al., 2012; MacNeil, 2012; Matan and Newman, 2012)

Signage

Safety traffic

from

a) Warn and guide the pedestrian (De Cambra, 2012; Funk, 2012; Clifton et al., 2007; Kihl et al., 2005; Southworth, 2005)

Bollards

Safety traffic

from

a) Separate pedestrian from vehicle traffic (Centre for Excellence in Universal Design, 2014; Asadi-Shekari et al., 2013a; Samarasekara et al., 2013; Matan and Newman, 2012; Van Cauwenberg et al., 2012)

Safety falling

from

a) Allow to maintain pedestrian movement (Austrailian Government, 2013; Kihl et al., 2005; Southworth, 2005; Harkey and Zegeer, 2004; ISO/IEC, 2001)

Lighting

Safety traffic crime

from and

a) Enhance crime and traffic safety (Haans and de Kort, 2012; Azemati et al., 2011; Foster and Giles-Corti, 2008; Clifton et al., 2007; Crews and Zavotka, 2006)

Signals

Safety traffic

from

a) Impact safety and accessibility of the sidewalk (Centre for Excellence in Universal Design, 2014; Karim and Azmi, 2013; Slater et al., 2013; Clifton et al., 2007; Troped et al., 2006)

SC R

U

and

A

N

Surface material

and

IP T

Design factor

M

Across all audits, the factors related to safety such as traffic, falling, and crime were widely presented in the reviewed tools (Table 4). Regarding the creation of a

TE D

buffer between pedestrians and vehicles, many audits assessed the availability and width of the buffers. They considered any kinds of landscape elements and trees as the main means of creating a buffer between the road and the sidewalk. There are few instruments that do not specify the factors of safety required for establishing and

EP

assessing buffers, such as SPACE and WSAF (Emery et al., 2003). Very few audits address buffers created by bollards.

CC

Another factor of traffic safety issues is warning the pedestrian of approaching vehicles. The process that involves signals was presented in most tools, which included I-M (Boarnet et al., 2006), PEAT (Troped et al., 2006), Active Neighbourhood

A

Checklist (Hoehner, 2011), Analytic Audit Tool (Brownson et al., 2003), MAPS (Cain et al., 2012), PEDS (Clifton et al., 2007), and PIN3 Neighbourhood Audit Instrument (Evenson et al., 2009). Most of the tools used assessed the availability of pedestrian signals at intersections. Of the tools reviewed, very few tools, such as MAPS (Cain et al., 2012), assessed the crossing time within which the pedestrians are provided with signals. Although availability of this facility provides a safe crossing for pedestrians,

various aspects such as audibility, crossing time, and flashing are not examined in an indepth manner by the tools reviewed. With regards to safety from falling, there was no audit tool for assessing this factor. However, the sub-factors of surface and material integrity were assessed by several tools, such as SPACES (Pikora et al., 2002), PEDS (Clifton et al., 2007), and PEAT (Troped et al., 2006). However, these tools do not assess these two factors from the aspect of the potential hazard of falling. The tools are not enabled to inform the

IP T

decision makers regarding the potential risk of falling due to slippery conditions, cracks, and holes in the surface and materials used.

SC R

Several audit tools assessed safety from crime, such as PIN3 (Evenson et al., 2009), I-M (Boarnet et al., 2006), SPACES (Pikora et al., 2002), and Analytic Audit Tool (Brownson et al., 2003). While PIN3 (Evenson et al., 2009) and Analytic Audit Tool (Brownson et al., 2003) assessed the safety from crime using the presence of a

U

neighbourhood crime watch, the I-M and SPACES tools (Boarnet et al., 2006; Pikora et

N

al., 2002) use the availability of street lighting on segments of the walkways to assess this factor. SPACES assesses passive surveillance, which allows others to observe the

A

sidewalks from windows, verandas, and gardens (Pikora et al., 2002). However, most of

M

the existing audit tools of walkability do not deal with the assessment of the pedestrian environments and sidewalks regarding safety from crime. A small number of

TE D

instruments that consider the evaluation of safety from crime neglected to include all sidewalk factors necessary to establish a proper assessment, such as passive surveillance and street lighting.

From the perspective of statistics, WSAF and SPACES have the highest

EP

percentage of safety indicators (66.6%) (Table 4), and PEDS and MAPS have 50% of the safety indicators. Despite the large number of sidewalk-related indicators in AAT,

CC

only one indicator is used to assess the safety of the sidewalk (16.6% of the safety

A

indicators), which does not seem proportional.

Table 4. Audit Reviews According to the Safety Dimension

PEAT

Total number of sidewalk indicators 17

WSAF

Tool name

𝑻𝒇

𝑪𝒇𝒊 % 50

6

1. Material, 2. Surface condition, 3. Necessity of installation of pedestrian signals at busy intersection, 4. Availability of adequate lighting

66.6

PIN3

2

1. Availability of public lighting

16.6

I-M

7

1. Availability of pedestrian signal, 2. Availability of lighting on the segment, 3. Number of trees

AAT

16

1. Visibility of neighbourhood crime watch

ANC

10

1. Availability of Buffers using trees 2. Availability of bumps, cracks, holes, or weeds in the sidewalk

33.3

PEDS

9

1. Path material, 2. Availability of crossing aids (pedestrian signal, signage), 3. Roadway/path lighting

50

SPACES

9

1. Path material, 2. Path surface condition, 3. Availability of lighting, 4. Passive surveillance

66.6

MAPS

9

1. Availability of signal (pedestrian signal), 2. Number of trees within 5 feet of either side of the sidewalk, 3. The order of planting the trees

50

CCPE

9

1. Street lighting, 2. Pedestrian crossing signs

33.3

IP T

1. Availability of pedestrian signal, .2 Availability of signage, 3. Availability of lighting

50

M

A

N

U

SC R

16.6

EP

TE D

PEAT: Path Environment Audit Tool; WSAF: Walking Suitability Assessment Form; PIN3: PIN3 Neighbourhood Audit Instrument; I-M: Irvine Minnesota Inventory; AAT: Analytic Audit Tool; ANC: Active Neighbourhood Checklist; PEDS: Pedestrian Environment Data Scan; SPACES: Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan; MAPS: Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes; CCPE: Central Corridor Pedestrian Environment.

Attractive Design Factors

CC

An attractive pedestrian environment goes one step further in making the pedestrian feel comfortable and safe. Sidewalks with beautiful features and active public spaces attract

A

people to use them and declare that “this is a place for pedestrians” (Tolkan, 2008). Appealing design factors refer to the characteristics of the pedestrian environments that create comfortable and visually aesthetic walking paths. Audits using items relevant to environment attractiveness are noted, and these include elements such as landscape design features and trees, which create a pleasant street environment (Hansen, 2014; Rahimiashtiani and Ujang, 2013; De Cambra, 2012; Matan and Newman, 2012; Moniruzzaman and Paez, 2012); benches and sitting areas, which provide convenience

for pedestrians (Galanis and Eliou, 2011; Cunningham et al., 2005b; Kihl et al., 2005); trash receptacles, which impact the visual appeal and cleanliness of the sidewalk (Kansas City Walkability Plan, 2014; City of Boston, 2013); bollards (De Cambra, 2012; Rosanove, 2009); effective width of the sidewalk, which impacts comfort and enjoyment of walking (Samarasekara et al., 2013; Azemati et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2011; Lin and Chang, 2010; Tan et al., 2007; Krambeck, 2006; Cervero, 2002); lighting (Brownson et al., 2004a; Landis et al., 2001; Zacharias, 2001; Tsao et al.); and

IP T

cleanliness, which makes the sidewalks more attractive, comfortable, and aesthetic (De

Cambra, 2012; Galanis and Eliou, 2011; Krambeck, 2006; Suminski et al., 2005; Handy

SC R

and Clifton, 2001).

With respect to aesthetical design factors, a considerable number of audits assessed the attractiveness and comfort of the segment (Table 5), such as I-M (Boarnet et al., 2006), Analytic Audit Tool (Brownson et al., 2003), PEDS (Clifton et al., 2007),

U

SPACES (Pikora et al., 2002), and Audit Tool for the Central Corridor Pedestrian

N

Environment (Tolkan, 2008). PEDS (Clifton et al., 2007) and SPACES (Pikora et al., 2002) assess the attractiveness of the segment with subjective assessments. These tools

A

ask for auditor rates and the attractiveness of the segment on a Likert scale. Questions

M

regarding attractiveness lack high reliability due to their inherently subjective characteristics. A limited number of tools assessed the attractiveness of the segment

TE D

using some micro-scale design factors such as benches, trees, and street lightings (Audit Tool for the Central Corridor Pedestrian Environment and Analytic Audit Tool (Brownson et al., 2003)). Considering more micro-scale factors in the assessment

A

CC

EP

procedure might increase the objectivity of the assessment of attractiveness.

Table 5. Audit Review According to the Attractiveness Dimension

PEAT

Total number of sidewalk indicators 17

WSAF

Tool name

𝑻𝒇

𝑪𝒇𝒊 % 28.5

6

1. Sidewalk width, 2. Availability of adequate lighting

28.5

PIN3

2

1. Availability of trees shading the walking area, 2. Availability of public lighting

28.5

I-M

7

1. Number of seating areas, 2. Number of trees, 3. Availability of lighting on the segment

AAT

16

1. Sidewalk width, 2. Number of benches, 3. Availability of comfort features (shade trees, benches, or other types of amenities), 4. Availability of path obstructions (trees, trash receptacles), 5. Availability/visibility of service amenities in the segment (trash receptacles), 6. Presence of street amenities (trash receptacles)

EP 9

42.8

71.4

1. Number of verge trees, 2. Average height of trees, 3. Cleanliness: (can you see any litter, rubbish, graffiti, broken glass, discarded items?), 4. Availability of lighting

57.1

TE D

9

MAPS

85.7

1. Availability of street amenities (benches), 2. Number of trees shading the walking area, 3. Sidewalk width, 4. Overall cleanliness of sidewalk, 5. Roadway/path lighting

M

9

SPACES

CCPE

N

U

1. Pedestrian amenities (bench and pedestrian scale lighting), 2. Cleanliness (availability of graffiti and litter), 3. Landscape and trees

A

9

PEDS

42.8

SC R

10

ANC

IP T

1. Availability of seating areas and benches along trail segment, 2. Availability of lighting

1. Availability of street amenities (benches and seating area, drinking fountain, 2. Number of trees within 5 feet of either side of the sidewalk, 3. The order of planting the trees, 4. Coverage of trees along the sidewalk (percentage), 5. Sidewalk width

71.4

1. Sidewalk width, 2. Benches, 3. Landscape, 4. Street lighting

57.1

A

CC

PEAT: Path Environment Audit Tool; WSAF: Walking Suitability Assessment Form; PIN3: PIN3 Neighbourhood Audit Instrument; I-M: Irvine Minnesota Inventory; AAT: Analytic Audit Tool; ANC: Active Neighbourhood Checklist; PEDS: Pedestrian Environment Data Scan; SPACES: Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan; MAPS: Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes; CCPE: Central Corridor Pedestrian Environment.

Sidewalk Path Condition To assess whether the audits include items related to sidewalk path conditions, audits that included the items related to the maintenance of the sidewalk, slope, natural barriers (Clifton et al., 2007), and levelness of the sidewalk (Williams et al., 2005) were

reviewed. Across all audits, the path condition is the most widely present in the reviewed tools (Table 6). WSAF (Emery et al., 2003) and I-M assessed the status and maintenance of the sidewalk on a three-point scale, using a single-question format. Analytic Audit Tool, PEDS (Clifton et al., 2007), PIN3 (Evenson et al., 2009), and SPACES (Pikora et al., 2002) examined the path condition by checking the bumps, cracks, and holes. PEAT (Troped et al., 2006) assessed the sidewalk condition and

IP T

maintenance using three indicators regarding the status of the path surface, the portion of the path surface under repair, and temporary barriers. However, none of the

SC R

walkability audit tools provided exact information regarding the path condition and

maintenance. Statistically, most of the tools considered more than 30% of the path condition factors, and only PEDS and PIN3 did not use path condition indicators.

WSAF

𝑻𝒇

N

PEAT

Total number of sidewalk indicators 17

Tool name

U

Table 6. Audit Review According to the Path Condition Dimension

𝑪𝒇𝒊 % 66.6

6

1. Material, 2. Surface condition

66.6

PIN3

2

None

0

I-M

7

1. Steepness of the segment

33.3

AAT

16

1. Levelness and condition of sidewalk

33.3

ANC

10

1. Steepest slope along walking area

33.3

PEDS

9

None

0

SPACES

9

1. Path surface condition

33.3

MAPS

9

1. The degree of steepest cross slope

33.3

1. Sidewalk condition, 2. Slope

66.6

M

TE D

EP

CCPE

A

1. Slope of the segment, 2. Path condition (under repair)

9

A

CC

PEAT: Path Environment Audit Tool; WSAF: Walking Suitability Assessment Form; PIN3: PIN3 Neighbourhood Audit Instrument; I-M: Irvine Minnesota Inventory; AAT: Analytic Audit Tool; ANC: Active Neighbourhood Checklist; PEDS: Pedestrian Environment Data Scan; SPACES: Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan; MAPS: Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes; CCPE: Central Corridor Pedestrian Environment.

IP T SC R U N

Figure 2. Comparison of appraisal results

M

A

Discussion

This study assesses walkability audit tools for their sidewalk assessment relevance,

TE D

applicability, and capability. Other related details are also discussed. The findings of the study can be useful for developing and modifying walkability assessment tools that provide information on safety, attractiveness, and accessibility of walking paths for different people, particularly people with disabilities, whose needs are not commonly

EP

factored into the creation of walkways. Accessible design factors- Surprisingly, this study found limited audit tools,

CC

such as PEAT (Troped et al., 2006), that considered disability issues. These tools focus on topics such as accessible amenities (e.g., drinking fountains and bathrooms) and street accessibility and crossings (e.g., signage and curb cut accessibility). Although

A

these tools included some items for assessing the environment for people with disabilities, such audits can be enhanced in two ways. First, including more assessment indicators relevant to the disabled, such as tactile pavements that warn the visually impaired people of significant changes in level and direction, and elevators next to a sky-bridge, which allow the tool to assess whether walking-impaired people can use the sky-bridge. Another enhancement can be audits paired with a disability-specific

instrument. This allows an accurate assessment of pedestrian environment suitability for people with disabilities. Safety design factors- While all audits reviewed included items relevant to “safety from traffic,” no tool was found that assessed the sidewalk from the aspect of safety from falling. Although the measures regarding material and/or surface are included in most of the tools, they are not specified for assessing issues on safety from falling. It is hard to interpret the results from the standpoint of safety from falling.

IP T

Safety from traffic using buffering can be assessed by more micro-scale sidewalk factors such as bollards and resting areas placed in the curb and furniture zones.

SC R

Bollards can be utilized to separate pedestrian walks from vehicles; this would reduce the risk of conflict between the vehicles and the people on the sidewalks. It also

prevents cars from parking on the sidewalks (MacNeil, 2012; Van Cauwenberg et al., 2012). Thus, adding more sidewalk design factors such as bollards to the assessment

U

process can lead to the creation of more accurate results regarding the separation of

N

pedestrians from vehicles.

Signals, which are the main means of pedestrian warning systems at

A

intersections, are well assessed by several audit tools. The major drawback of the

M

walkability audit tools regarding signal assessment is negligence in signal system assessment from some technical aspects, such as auditory quality, crossing time, and

TE D

flashing. The absence of signals and indicators can have an adverse impact on the safety and accessibility of the sidewalk. Audible and flashing crossing signals assist people with visual and hearing impairments to pass through the crosswalks and other pedestrian-vehicle conflict zones with more convenience (Centre for Excellence in

EP

Universal Design, 2014; Oxley and Britain, 2002). Safety from crime is rarely assessed in the walkability audit tools. While some

CC

tools use neighbourhood crime watch to assess this factor, a limited number of audit tools use lighting and passive surveillance for assessing safety from crime. Placing

A

adequate street lights can lead to discourage crime, reduction of fear and eventual reduction of overall crime. Finally, this would increase the use of streets by pedestrians after dark (Jaskiewicz, 2000; Painter, 1996). Additionally, increasing surveillance can provide an eye on the street; this can be created through the use of CCTV and security patrols (active surveillance) and active frontages and façade solid-void ratio (passive surveillance) (Tiwari, 2014). As such, including items related to lighting and

surveillance in sidewalk assessment can provide us with useful information on whether the sidewalks discourage crime and encourage people to walk, specifically after dark. Finally, this review suggests a need for inclusion of all safety design factors that should be included in new and/or modified tools. Using safety factors, items addressing the safety needs of people with different characteristics, such as women, children, seniors, and people with disability, can be integrated into the development or revision of generic pedestrian environment audits to obtain information necessary for constructing

IP T

safe walking paths.

Attractiveness design factors- A large number of walkability audit tools assessed

SC R

attractiveness on a small scale. Although they use various types of factors for assessing attractiveness, the micro-scale design factors are not used widely. Adding such design factors into the assessment tools might avoid subjectivity during the pedestrian’s environment evaluation process.

U

Path condition design factors- Most tools used items relating to path condition.

N

The audits typically assess sidewalk maintenance and condition using a set of limited questions. For instance, PEDS (Clifton et al., 2007) and I-M (Boarnet et al., 2006) used

A

a single-question format to assess sidewalk maintenance. These tools asked the auditors

M

to rate the sidewalk maintenance on a Likert scale. The study’s finding suggested the inclusion of more items relating to the maintenance of a sidewalk, such as levelness of

TE D

the sidewalk, artificial and natural items blocking the walkway (Williams et al., 2005). Including assessment items regarding sidewalk maintenance might increase the awareness of the city planners on the issues requiring improvements and prevent incidents and injuries that may have been caused by poor or under-maintained

EP

sidewalks.

The qualitative characteristics of the sidewalks such as cleanliness and lighting

CC

have attracted less attention than other sidewalk indicators. Only PEAT (Troped et al., 2006), PEDS (Clifton et al., 2007), and SPACES (Pikora et al., 2002) include these two

A

indicators as a combination in their assessment tool. However, these two indicators are very critical in shaping an attractive and inviting pedestrian environment. Figure 3 presents the existing audits' shortcomings and proposed solution outlined above.

IP T SC R U N A M TE D

EP

Figure 3. Existing walkability audit shortcomings and recommendations

CC

Conclusion

This study analysed walkability audit tools to provide information on the gaps in sidewalk assessment and other relevant issues of pedestrian environment assessment.

A

More focus on various aspects of sidewalk design, such as accessibility (usability for the disabled), safety, and attractiveness, is needed. Such audit tools will yield more valuable detailed information on safety and attractiveness for people with different abilities, accessibility for people with disabilities, and help build or modify the pedestrian environments that allow people with different abilities and characteristics to lead active and healthy lives.

Since the existing walkability audits rarely consider people with disability and their needs, it is crucial to ensure that the items regarding assessing accessibility of the sidewalk design factors are included in the audits. More focus is needed on the specific types of disabilities that attract less attention than walking disabilities, such as visual and hearing impairments. More micro-scale factors can be used for various assessment purposes, such as safety, attractiveness, and path condition evaluation, to obtain exact information on

SC R

detailed and multiple dimensions of the physical state of the sidewalk.

IP T

important sidewalk design factors. Utilizing micro-scale factors helps to capture

References

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

Abley, S., Wade-Brown, C., Thomas, L., Linton, L. and Shuttleworth, K. (2010). Guide to undertaking community street reviews. Auckland, NZ Trabsport Agency. ADA (2010a). 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Title II. Washigton, D.C., Department of Justice,: 279. ADA (2010b). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. Washington, D.C., U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,. Addy, C. L., Wilson, D. K., Kirtland, K. A., Ainsworth, B. E., Sharpe, P. and Kimsey, D. (2004). Associations of perceived social and physical environmental supports with physical activity and walking behavior. Journal Information. 94 (3). Aghaabbasi, M., Moeinaddini, M., Shah, M. Z. and Asadi-Shekari, Z. (2017). A new assessment model to evaluate the microscale sidewalk design factors at the neighbourhood level. Journal of Transport & Health. 5: 97-112. Akiyama, T. and Kim, J.-k. (2005). Transportation Policies for the Elderly and Disabled in Japan. International Journal of Urban Sciences. 9 (2): 87-98. Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M. and Zaly Shah, M. (2013a). Disabled Pedestrian Level of Service Method for Evaluating and Promoting Inclusive Walking Facilities on Urban Streets. Journal of Transportation Engineering. 139 (2): 181-192. Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M. and Zaly Shah, M. (2013b). Non-motorised Level of Service: Addressing Challenges in Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service. Transport Reviews. 33 (2): 166-194. Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M. and Zaly Shah, M. (2014). A pedestrian level of service method for evaluating and promoting walking facilities on campus streets. Land Use Policy. 38: 175-193. Asadi-Shekari. Z, Moeinaddini .M and Zaly Shah. M (2015a). A Bicycle Safety Index for Evaluating Urban Street Facilities. Traffic Injury Prevention, 16 (3), 283-288 Asadi-Shekari. Z, Moeinaddini .M and Zaly Shah. M (2015b). Pedestrian Safety Index for Evaluating Street Facilities in Urban Areas. Safety Science, 74, 1-14 Audirac, I. (2008). Accessing transit as universal design. Journal of Planning Literature. 23 (1): 4-16.

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Austrailian Government (2013). Accessibility Design Guide: Universal design principles for Australia’s aid program. Annex A: Built environment. Canberra, Department of Forein Affairs and Trade: 139. Azemati, H. R., Bagheri, M., Hosseini, S. B. and Maleki, S. N. (2011). An assessment of pedestrian networks in accessible neighborhoods: traditional neighborhoods in Iran. International Journal of Architectural Engineering & Urban Planning. 21 (1). Badland, H. and Schofield, G. (2005). Transport, urban design, and physical activity: an evidence-based update. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 10 (3): 177-196. Baris, M. E. and Uslu, A. (2009). Accessibility for the disabled people to the built environment in Ankara, Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 4 (9): 801-814. Boarnet, M. G., Day, K., Alfonzo, M., Forsyth, A. and Oakes, M. (2006). The Irvine– Minnesota inventory to measure built environments: reliability tests. American journal of preventive medicine. 30 (2): 153-159. e143. Borst, H. C., de Vries, S. I., Graham, J. M., van Dongen, J. E., Bakker, I. and Miedema, H. M. (2009). Influence of environmental street characteristics on walking route choice of elderly people. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 29 (4): 477-484. Brownson, R. C., Chang, J. J., Eyler, A. A., Ainsworth, B. E., Kirtland, K. A., Saelens, B. E. and Sallis, J. F. (2004a). Measuring the environment for friendliness toward physical activity: a comparison of the reliability of 3 questionnaires. Journal Information. 94 (3). Brownson, R. C., Hoehner, C. M., Brennan, L. K., Cook, R. A., Elliott, M. B. and McMullen, K. M. (2004b). Reliability of 2 instruments for auditing the environment for physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 1 (3): 191-208. Brownson, R. C., Hoehner, C. M., Day, K., Forsyth, A. and Sallis, J. F. (2009). Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am J Prev Med. 36 (4 Suppl): S99-123 e112. Brownson, R. C., Ramirez, L. K. B., Hoehner, C. M. and Cook, R. A. (2003). Analytic Audit Tool and Checklist Audit Tool. US, Saint Louis University School of Public Health: 1-9. Bungum, T. J., Lounsbery, M., Moonie, S. and Gast, J. (2009). Prevalence and correlates of walking and biking to school among adolescents. Journal of community health. 34 (2): 129-134. Cain, K. L., Millstein, R. A. and Geremia, C. M. (2012). "Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS): Data Collection & Scoring Manual. University California San Diego." Retrieved 6rh February, 2015, from http://sallis.ucsd.edu/measures/maps. Cain, K. L., Millstein, R. A., Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Gavand, K. A., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Geremia, C. M., Chapman, J., Adams, M. A., Glanz, K. and King, A. C. (2014). Contribution of streetscape audits to explanation of physical activity in four age groups based on the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). Soc Sci Med. 116: 82-92. Centre for Excellence in Universal Design (2014). Booklet 1 - External environment and approach. Dublin: Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. Cervero, R. (2002). Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 7 (4): 265-284.

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

City of Boston (2013). BOSTON Complete Streets Guidlines. Boston, Boston Transportation Department: 81. Clifton, K. J., Livi Smith, A. D. and Rodriguez, D. (2007). The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landscape and Urban Planning. 80 (1): 95-110. Crews, D. E. and Zavotka, S. (2006). Aging, disability, and frailty: implications for universal design. Journal of physiological anthropology. 25 (1): 113-118. Cui, J., Allan, A., Taylor, M. A. and Lin, D. (2012). Developing Shanghai underground pedestrian system under urbanization: mobility, functionality and equity. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism. 36 (4): 283-297. Cunningham, G. O., Michael, Y. L., Farquhar, S. A. and Lapidus, J. (2005a). Developing a reliable Senior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool. Am J Prev Med. 29 (3): 215-217. Cunningham, G. O., Michael, Y. L., Farquhar, S. A. and Lapidus, J. (2005b). Developing a reliable senior walking environmental assessment tool. American journal of preventive medicine. 29 (3): 215-217. De Cambra, P. J. M. (2012). Pedestrian Accessibility and Attractiveness Indicators for Walkability Assessment. Thesis for the Master Degree (MSc) in Urban Studies and Territorial Management De Vries, S. I., Bakker, I., Van Mechelen, W. and Hopman-Rock, M. (2007). Determinants of activity-friendly neighborhoods for children: results from the SPACE study. American journal of health promotion. 21 (4s): 312-316. Deichmann, J., Architect, M. and Nyvig, R. (2004). Accessible urban spaces–a challenge for urban designers. The Fifth International Conference on Walking in the 21st Century. Copenhagen, Denmark, Walk: 1-8. Emery, J., Crump, C. and Bors, P. (2003). Reliability and validity of two instruments designed to assess the walking and bicycling suitability of sidewalks and roads. Am J Health Promot. 18 (1): 38-46. Erkiliç, M. (2011). Conceptual challenges between universal design and disability in relation to the body, impairment, and the environment METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture. 28 (2). Erlandson, R. F. (2010). Universal and accessible design for products, services, and processes. CRC Press. Evenson, K. R., Sotres-Alvarez, D., Herring, A. H., Messer, L., Laraia, B. A. and Rodríguez, D. A. (2009). Assessing urban and rural neighborhood characteristics using audit and GIS data: derivation and reliability of constructs. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 6 (1): 44. Fearnley, N., Flügel, S. and Ramjerdi, F. (2011). Passengers' valuations of universal design measures in public transport. Research in Transportation Business & Management. 2: 83-91. Foster, S. and Giles-Corti, B. (2008). The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical activity: An exploration of inconsistent findings. Preventive Medicine. 47 (3): 241-251. Funk, C. (2012). Walkability of transit-oriented development: Evaluating the pedestrian environment of Metro Vancouver's Regional City Centres. Galanis, A. and Eliou, N. (2011). Evaluation of the pedestrian infrastructure using walkability indicators. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development. 7 (12): 385-394.

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Gamache, S., Vincent, C., McFadyen, B., Routhier, F., Beauregard, L. and Fiset, D. (2012). Measure of Accessibility to Urban Infrastructures for Adults Presenting Physical Disabilities. Giles-Corti, B. and Donovan, R. J. (2002). Socioeconomic Status Differences in Recreational Physical Activity Levels and Real and Perceived Access to a Supportive Physical Environment. Preventive Medicine. 35 (6): 601-611. Giles-Corti, B. and Donovan, R. J. (2003). Relative influences of individual, social environmental, and physical environmental correlates of walking. American journal of public health. 93 (9): 1583-1589. Guo, Z. (2009). Does the pedestrian environment affect the utility of walking? A case of path choice in downtown Boston. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 14 (5): 343-352. Haans, A. and de Kort, Y. A. W. (2012). Light distribution in dynamic street lighting: Two experimental studies on its effects on perceived safety, prospect, concealment, and escape. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 32 (4): 342352. Handicap International (2008). How to Build an Accessible Environment in Developing Countries. Phnom Pemh, Handicap International France, Cambodia Program,: 42. Handy, S. L. and Clifton, K. J. (2001). Evaluating Neighborhood Accessibility: Possibilities and Practicalities. Journal of Transportation and Statistics. 4 (2/3): 67-78. Hansen, G. (2014). Design for Healthy Communities: The Potential of Form-Based Codes to Create Walkable Urban Streets. Journal of Urban Design. 19 (2): 151170. Hanson, J. (2004). The Inclusive City: Delivering a more accessible urban environment through Inclusive Design. Harkey, D. L. and Zegeer, C. V. (2004). PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. NC, U.S. Department of Transportation: 330. Hernandez, D. (2013). Vulnerable Populations and the Built Environment. American Journal of Public Health. 103 (4): E32-E34. Hoehner, C. (2011). Active Neighborhood Checklist. U.S. Huston, S. L., Evenson, K. R., Bors, P. and Gizlice, Z. (2003). Neighborhood environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. American Journal of Health Promotion. 18 (1): 58-69. ISO/IEC (2001). Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities. Switzerland, The International Organization for Standardization, The International Electrotechnical Commission: 30. Jaskiewicz, F. (2000). Pedestrian level of service based on trip quality. Transportation Research Board Circular. E-C019: Urban Street Symposium. Kansas City Walkability Plan (2014). Measuring walkability: Tools and assessment. Karim, H. A. and Azmi, D. I. (2013). Convenience and Safety of Walking Experience in Putrajaya Neighbourhood Area. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 101: 318-327. Kihl, M., Brennan, D., Gabhawala, N., List, J. and Mittal, P. (2005). "Livable communities: An evaluation guide." Retrieved 28 June, 2014, from http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/d18311_communities.pdf.

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Kim, S., Choi, J. and Kim, Y. (2011). Determining the sidewalk pavement width by using pedestrian discomfort levels and movement characteristics. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 15 (5): 883-889. Kochtitzky, C. S. (2011). Vulnerable Populations and the Built Environment.Making Healthy Places 129-145, Springer. Kockelman, K., Zhao, Y., Heard, L., Taylor, D. and Taylor, B. (2000). The nature of ADA’s sidewalk cross-slopes requirements: a review of the literature. Transportation Research Record (1705): 53-60. Krambeck, H. V. (2006). The global walkability index. Master in City Planning and Master of Science in Transportation Massachusetts Institute of Technology Landis, B. W., Vattikuti, V. R., Ottenberg, R. M., McLeod, D. S. and Guttenplan, M. (2001). Modeling the roadside walking environment: pedestrian level of service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 1773 (1): 82-88. Larsen, K. (2014). Safety and school travel: How does the built environment relate to correlates of safety, mode of travel and physical activity levels to and from school. University of Toronto Lin, J.-J. and Chang, H.-T. (2010). Built environment effects on children’s school travel in Taipai: independence and travel mode. Urban studies. 47 (4): 867-889. MacNeil, L. (2012). Steps to a Walkable Community: A Guide for Citizens, Planners, and Engineers. Matan, A. and Newman, P. (2012). Jan Gehl and new visions for walkable Australian cities. Special edition A Future Beyond the Car? 17. McDonald, N. C. (2007). Active transportation to school: trends among US schoolchildren, 1969–2001. American journal of preventive medicine. 32 (6): 509-516. Moeinaddini . M, Asadi-Shekari. Z, Ismail. C.R and Zaly Shah. M (2013). A Practical Method for Evaluating Parking Area Level of Service. Land Use Policy, 33, 110 Moeinaddini .M, Asadi-Shekari.Z and Zaly Shah. M (2014). Analyzing the Relationship between Park-and-Ride Facilities and Private Motorized Trips Indicators. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 39(5), 3481-3488 Moniruzzaman, M. and Paez, A. (2012). A model-based approach to select case sites for walkability audits. Health & Place. 18 (6): 1323-1334. Monteiro, F. B. and Campos, V. B. (2012). A proposal of indicators for evaluation of the urban space for pedestrians and cyclists in access to mass transit station. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 54: 637-645. Moudon, A. V. and Lee, C. (2003). Walking and bicycling: an evaluation of environmental audit instruments. American Journal of Health Promotion. 18 (1): 21-37. Owen, N., Humpel, N., Leslie, E., Bauman, A. and Sallis, J. F. (2004a). Understanding environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda. American journal of preventive medicine. 27 (1): 67-76. Owen, N., Humpel, N., Leslie, E., Bauman, A. and Sallis, J. F. (2004b). Understanding environmental influences on walking; Review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med. 27 (1): 67-76. Oxley, P. R. and Britain, G. (2002). Inclusive Mobility: a guide to best practice on access to pedestrian and transport infrastructure. Department for Transport.

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Painter, K. (1996). The influence of street lighting improvements on crime, fear and pedestrian street use, after dark. Landscape and urban planning. 35 (2): 193201. Pikora, T. J., Bull, F. C., Jamrozik, K., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B. and Donovan, R. J. (2002). Developing a Reliable Audit Instrument to Measure the Physical Environment for Physical Activity. American journal of preventive medicine. 23 (3): 187-194. Preiser, W. F. (2007). Integrating the seven principles of universal design into planning practice. Universal Design and Visitability: From Accessibility to Zoning, The John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Columbus, Ohio, USA: 11-30. Rahimiashtiani, Z. and Ujang, N. (2013). Pedestrian Satisfaction with Aesthetic, Attractiveness and Pleasurability: Evaluating the Walkability of ChaharaghAbbasi Street in Isfahan, Iran. ALAM CIPTA, International Journal of Sustainable Tropical Design Research and Practice. 6 (2): 13-22. Rickert, T. and Reeves, K. (1998). Mobility for all: accessible transportation around the world. New York, Health and Welfare Ministries: 25. Rodriguez, D. A., Aytur, S., Forsyth, A., Oakes, J. M. and Clifton, K. J. (2008). Relation of modifiable neighborhood attributes to walking. Preventive Medicine. 47 (3): 260-264. Rosanove, M. (2009). Using an audit tool to assess the walkability of the Beaconsfield neighbourhood from a child’s perspective: Can pedestrian access to local parks in Beaconsfield, Victoria be improved? Samarasekara, G., Fukahori, K. and Kubota, Y. (2013). Walkability evaluation of streetscapes: development of prediction equations for walking needs of tourists, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Ruhuna: 110-117. Slater, S. J., Nicholson, L., Chriqui, J., Barker, D. C., Chaloupka, F. J. and Johnston, L. D. (2013). Walkable communities and adolescent weight. American journal of preventive medicine. 44 (2): 164-168. Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the walkable city. Journal of urban planning and development. 131 (4): 246-257. Stark, S., Hollingsworth, H. H., Morgan, K. A. and Gray, D. B. (2007). Development of a measure of receptivity of the physical environment. Disabil Rehabil. 29 (2): 123-137. Story, M. F. (1998). Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design. Assistive technology. 10 (1): 4-12. Suminski, R. R., Poston, W. S., Petosa, R. L., Stevens, E. and Katzenmoyer, L. M. (2005). Features of the neighborhood environment and walking by U.S. adults. Am J Prev Med. 28 (2): 149-155. Tan, D., Wang, W., Lu, J. and Bian, Y. (2007). Research on methods of assessing pedestrian level of service for sidewalk. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology. 7 (5): 74-79. Tiwari, R. (2014). Designing a safe walkable city. Urban Design International. 20 (1): 12-27. Tolkan, J. (2008). Audit Tool for the Central Corridor Pedestrian Environment. The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. Troped, P. J., Cromley, E. K., Fragala, M. S., Melly, S. J., Hasbrouck, H. H., Gortmaker, S. L. and Brownson, R. C. (2006). Development and reliability and validity testing of an audit tool for trail/path characteristics: the Path

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Environment Audit Tool (PEAT). Journal of Physical Activity & Health. 3: S158. Tsao, Y.-C., Chen, Y.-T., Chu, S.-L., Huang, W.-S., Lai, C.-H. and Chang, K.-K. Universal Design of the Way-finding System in Transportation Environments. Van Cauwenberg, J., Van Holle, V., Simons, D., Deridder, R., Clarys, P., Goubert, L., Nasar, J., Salmon, J., De Bourdeaudhuij, I. and Deforche, B. (2012). Environmental factors influencing older adults’ walking for transportation: a study using walk-along interviews. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 9 (1): 85. WHO (2017). Better health for people with disabilities: infographic. Disabilities. World Health Organization, World Health Organization. Williams, J. E., Evans, M., Kirtland, K. A., Cavnar, M. M., Sharpe, P. A., Neet, M. J. and Cook, A. (2005). Development and use of a tool for assessing sidewalk maintenance as an environmental support of physical activity. Health promotion practice. 6 (1): 81-88. Zacharias, J. (2001). Pedestrian behavior pedestrian behavior and perception in urban walking environments. Journal of Planning Literature. 16 (1): 3-18.