A New Approach for the Evaluation of the Walking Environment

ABSTRACT

Space, flow rate, speed, and the volume-to-capacity ratio have been taken into account in the existing evaluations of pedestrian environments, such as those focusing on traffic facilities. However, these measures are insufficient when assessing pedestrian environments in favored places where many pedestrians congregate. Therefore, this study attempts to develop a “walk score” to evaluate the spatial characteristics of pedestrian environments and the facility characteristics of pedestrian networks in relation to major subway stations in Seoul, Korea. In particular, the walk score that we have developed focuses on qualitative convenience factors using GIS (Geographic Information System) and quantitative network connectivity indices of the Space Syntax technique. The scores of the amenities have been calculated as avenue-oriented type, destination-oriented type, or general amenities, considering the individual distances and the number of facilities available. The convenience and connectivity of the pedestrian networks have been measured quantitatively using the Space Syntax model (Hillier 1996; Penn et al. 1998). Furthermore, our walk score has been calculated by integrating amenity and pedestrian network scores using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). With the walk score proposed in this study, it is easily possible to evaluate pedestrian environments around subway-adjacent areas, and to compare and analyze the types and number of facilities and the connectivity of the pedestrian networks. This will be helpful in suggesting future improvements, as well as evaluating the level of quality of current pedestrian environments.

Key Words:

• amenities
• analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
• pedestrian network
• space syntax model
• subway-adjacent area
• walk score

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRK) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST), No. 2009-413-D00001.

Notes

Source: HCM 2000.

Note: Scores for normalization used the same methods as for Figure 6. Distribution of weights regarding amenities was assigned with each value (0.25, 0.75, and 1.0, respectively).