1 Introduction
2 Literature review
2.1 Secondary utility of travel
2.2 Walking behavior and the built environment
3 Methodology
3.1 Data and study area
Socio-demographic measures | Neighborhooda | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
O1 | O2 | SM1 | SM2 | M1 | M2 | |
Neighborhood population characteristics – 2011 census | ||||||
Number of household | 1601 | 1100 | 953 | 806 | 2153 | 645 |
Percentage of male | 53 | 52 | 49 | 55 | 48 | 53 |
Median age | 44 | 42 | 38 | 42 | 41 | 36 |
Average household size | 3.21 | 3.8 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 2.8 |
Survey respondent characteristics | ||||||
Number of sample | 193 | 114 | 112 | 94 | 268 | 82 |
Percentage of male | 48 | 57 | 54 | 49 | 52 | 61 |
Median age | 42 | 46 | 31 | 35 | 45 | 38 |
Average household auto ownership | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.9 | 0.86 | 0.98 | 1.1 |
Average household size | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
Mean monthly income of household ($) | 412 | 450 | 520 | 436 | 600 | 430 |
3.2 Definition of dependent and independent variables
3.2.1 Frequency of utilitarian walking and hedonic walking
Variables | Mean | Std. deviation |
---|---|---|
Utilitarian walking | ||
No. of trips to mosque and civic building | 2.15 | 2.86 |
No. of trips to service provider (e.g. banks, post office) | 1.81 | 2.51 |
No. of trips to store | 5.35 | 4.31 |
No. of trips to children school | 0.71 | 2.03 |
No. of total utilitarian walking | 10.02 | 8.92 |
Hedonic walking | ||
No. of trips just for the fun of it | 0.36 | 0.67 |
No. of trips just for relaxing | 1.36 | 1.03 |
No. of trips just for being with friend(s) | 0.43 | 0.69 |
No. of trips just for being alone | 0.81 | 0.98 |
No. of total hedonic walking | 2.97 | 1.96 |
3.2.2 Objective measures of the built environment
Built environment measures | Sample | Region | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
O1 | O2 | SM1 | SM2 | M1 | M2 | Mean | SD | |
Residential density | 132 | 115 | 57.32 | 90 | 160 | 73.45 | 102 | 27 |
Entropy index | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.28 | 0.35 | 0.67 | 0.30 | 0.39 | 0.12 |
Street density | 70.1 | 45.4 | 42.7 | 24.6 | 50.36 | 48.9 | 41 | 12 |
Cul-de-sac density | 623.5 | 492 | 300 | 250 | 95.8 | 18.19 | 284 | 240 |
Density of bus route | 7.2 | 10.1 | 12.15 | 5.3 | 8.487 | 3.8 | 11.43 | 10.46 |
3.2.3 Perceived measures of the built environment and residential preferences
Factors | Statements and loadingsa |
---|---|
Facility accessibility | Easy access to other facilities including public transportation, places for physical activities, green space,etc. (0.623); Easy access to a regional shopping mall (0.514); shopping areas within walking distances (0.479) |
Safety | Quiet neighborhood (0.736); good street lighting at night (0.725); High volume of car traffic (−0.469); High speed of cars on neighborhood streets (− 0.381); low crime rate within neighborhood (0.358) |
Attractiveness | looking at houses when walking (0.720); Good sidewalks throughout the neighborhood (0.636); Attractive appearance of neighborhood (0.547) |
Walking infrastructure | parks and open spaces nearby (0.801); good sidewalks throughout the neighborhood (0.732); good street lighting at night (0.399) |
Socializing | lots of people out and about within the neighborhood (0.688); Perception that neighborhood is friendly/clean (0.517); lots of interactions among neighbors (0.437) |
Perceived measures of the built environment | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Facility accessibility | Safety | Attractiveness | Walking infrastructure | Socializing | |
Objective measures of the built environment | |||||
Entropy index | 0.254** | *0.125 | *0.342 | ||
Residential density | 0.130* | ||||
Street density | −0.011* | ||||
Cul-de-sac density | 0.028* | 0.001* | |||
Density of bus route |
3.2.4 Other explanatory variables
Factors | Statements and loadingsa |
---|---|
Pro- walking | Walking generally wastes time(−0.635); I prefer to walk rather than drive whenever possible (0.536); I like walking (0.453) |
Car Dependent | I need a car to do many of the things I like to do (0.617); we would like to own at least one more car (0.475); traveling by car is safer overall than walking (0.470); I like driving (0.364) |
Travel Minimizing | When I need to buy something, I usually prefer to get it at the closest store possible (0.731); I often use the telephone or the Internet to avoid having to travel somewhere (0.638); The only good thing about traveling is arriving at destination (0.486); |
Travel stress | I like traveling alone (−0.652); traveling makes me nervous (0.482) Traveling is generally tiring for me (0.369) |
Residential preferences | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Facility accessibility | Safety | Attractiveness | Walking infrastructure | Socializing | |
Attitudes | |||||
Pro- walking | 0.351** | 0.213* | 0.326* | ||
Travel minimizing | 0.098* | 0.201* | |||
Travel stress | 0.325* |
4 Results
4.1 Distribution of dependent and explanatory variables across the neighborhoods
Variables | Neighborhood | p-value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
O1 | O2 | SM1 | SM2 | M1 | M2 | ||
Walking behavior | |||||||
Utilitarian walking | 11.01 | 9.97 | 8.25 | 8.74 | 10.37 | 9.06 | 0.000 |
Hedonic walking | 3.01 | 3.05 | 3.21 | 2.27 | 3.77 | 1.96 | 0.000 |
Objective measures of the built environment | |||||||
Residential density | 132 | 73.45 | 90 | 57.32 | 160 | 115 | 0.001 |
Entropy index | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.28 | 0.35 | 0.67 | 0.30 | 0.000 |
Street density | 70.1 | 45.4 | 42.7 | 24.6 | 50.36 | 48.9 | 0.000 |
Cul-de-sac density | 623.5 | 492 | 300 | 250 | 95.8 | 18.19 | 0.004 |
Density of bus route | 7.2 | 10.1 | 12.15 | 5.3 | 8.49 | 3.8 | 0.003 |
Perceived measures of the built environment | |||||||
Facility accessibility | 3.8 | 3.5 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 2.7 | 0.000 |
Safety | 3.1 | 4.1 | 2.8 | 3 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 0.002 |
Attractiveness | 2.4 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 4.3 | 3.3 | 0.002 |
Walking infrastructure | 2.7 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 0.001 |
Socializing | 4.2 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 0.104 |
Residential preferences | |||||||
Facility accessibility | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 0.010 |
Safety | 3 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3 | 3 | 2.8 | 0.000 |
Attractiveness | 2.6 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 3.8 | 3 | 0.124 |
Walking infrastructure | 1.9 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.003 |
Socializing | 2.3 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 0.000 |
Attitudes factors | |||||||
Pro-walking | 4.2 | 3.8 | 3.1 | 3 | 4.3 | 3.2 | 0.000 |
Car dependent | 2.3 | 2.5 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 0.043 |
Travel Minimizing | 3.4 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 0.001 |
Travel stress | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 0.006 |
4.2 Multivariate analysis
Variable | Utilitarian walking | ||
---|---|---|---|
Coef. | IRR |
P
| |
Constant | −0.153 | 0.963 | |
Objective Built environment factors | |||
Entropy index | 0.214 | 1.239 | 0.001 |
Residential density | 0.194 | 1.214 | 0.000 |
Perceived Built environment factors | |||
Facility accessibility | 0.601 | 1.824 | 0.000 |
Attractiveness | 0.574 | 1.775 | 0.001 |
Walking infrastructure | 0.245 | 1.278 | 0.002 |
Attitudinal factors | |||
Pro- walking | 0.315 | 1.370 | 0.000 |
Car dependent | −0.247 | 0.781 | 0.001 |
Travel minimizing | 0.413 | 1.511 | 0.001 |
Socio-demographic characteristics | |||
Age | |||
15–30 years | 0.315 | 1.367 | 0.000 |
45–65 years | −0.218 | 0.804 | 0.000 |
Monthly household income | −0.194 | 0.824 | 0.000 |
Summary statistics | |||
Number of Obs. | 863 | ||
P (alpha) = 0 | 0.000 | ||
Pseudo R2 | 0.352 |
Variable | Hedonic walking | ||
---|---|---|---|
Coef. | IRR |
P
| |
Constant | −5.138 | 0.000 | |
Objective Built environment factors | |||
Entropy index | 0.163 | 1.177 | 0.003 |
Perceived Built environment factors | |||
Attractiveness | 0.611 | 1.842 | 0.000 |
Safety | 0.389 | 1.475 | 0.001 |
Attitudinal factors | |||
Pro-walking | 0.321 | 1.378 | 0.001 |
Car dependent | −0.479 | 0.619 | 0.000 |
Travel stress | −0.613 | 0.541 | 0.003 |
Socio-demographic characteristics | |||
Age | |||
15–30 years | 0.469 | 1.598 | 0.003 |
Over 65 years | −0.477 | 0.621 | 0.000 |
Unemployed | 0.543 | 1.721 | 0.000 |
Monthly household income | −0.295 | 0.744 | 0.000 |
Summary statistics | |||
Number of Obs. | 863 | ||
P (alpha) = 0 | 0.000 | ||
Pseudo R2 | 0.311 |