Walkability as a Form of Sustainable Transport Mode.
Case study: Bucharest Central AreaCosmina - Andreea MANEA
Master Student, Faculty of Geography, University of BucharestCICADIT Research Center, University of Bucharest
Students’ Scientific Circle of Urban and Rural Planning
6-7 December 2018, Bucharest
Definition• Walkability = the degree to which an area within walking distance of a
property encourages walking trips from the property to other destinations.(Pivo and Fsher, 2011, p. 186)
• Walkability = a quantitative and qualitative measurement of how inviting orun-inviting an area is to pedestrians. (Jane’s Walk, 2013)
• Walkable city = a city in which the car is an optional instrument of freedom,rather than a prosthetic device. (Jeff Speck, 2015)
• Walkability is the foundation of any type of transportation, as all trips requirewalking at some point. (European Commission)
Fig. 1. People walking on a crowded streetSource: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/8/4/want-community-build-walkability
2
Objectives
• Assessing the walkability level of Bucharest central areas;• Identifying the main factors that influence the walkability score;• Identifying the benefits of walkability;• Suggesting possible solutions in order to increase the walkability score.
3Fig. 2. Bucharest old city center – Lipscani street
Source: http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20130712-bucharests-new-old-city
1. Economics1970 – 1/10 of income on transportation2015 – 1/5 of income on transportation (more than on housing)
BUT 2 times more roads in 2015 than in 1970.
Urban marketing – 64% of millennials decide first WHERE they want to live, then they MOVE there, then they search for the JOB.
Why we need walkability?
4Source: http://www.economica.net/cat-cheltuiesc-romanii-pe-utilitati_102949.html
Equivalent of 9.06% of income (2014)
Table 1. Spending categories of household income in 2012 and 2014
2. Social: Health
1970 – 1 in 10 people obese2015 – 1 in 3 people obese (40% of men, 50% of women)
WHY? Environmentally induced inactivity.
Asthma
Cancer
Deaths
5
Fig. 3. Percentage of obese women by age group in Romania
Source: World Obesity
Fig. 4. Cancer risk factorsSource: https://www.prostemcell.ro/37-noutati-medicale/5517-studii-
clinice.html?lang=ro&start=15
3. Environmental
CO2 emissions paradox – the denser the city the less carbon footprintA walkable city saves in a week as much as changing all traditional lightbulbs in ecological ones saves in a year.
6Fig. 5. Annual carbon footprint by household in Boswash Megalopolis
Source: https://decolonialatlas.wordpress.com/2016/10/08/us-household-carbon-footprint/
Study area
A CB
Fig. 6. Areas covered by present study: A. Dorobanţi; B. Iancului; C. Grădina IcoaneiSource: Satellite image from Google Maps, edited in ArcGis
7
Methodology24 indicators;3 levels/scales; Data collected: 28 October – 3 November;Hour intervals: 9:00-12:00, 18:00-20:00.
24 indicators;3 levels/scales; Data collected: 28 October – 3 November;Hour intervals: 9:00-12:00, 18:00-20:00.
8
City
Neighborhood
Street
• Visually active frontage• Uses• Clean• Garbage bins• Cars/hour• Bus• Art and entertainment• Number of bands• Speed bumps
• Street level activity• Trees• Evening open• Street vendors• Color contrast• Quiet• Buildings height
• Walkway• Crosswalks• Signal at intersection• Seating• Shade and shelter• Paveway obstructions• Graffiti• Paveway width
Fig. 7. Level of intervention and walkability indicators usedSource: own data created based on biographical research
Walk score – matrix approach
Table 2. Walkability indicators and how they influence each other and the final walkability score
Source: bibliographical research, own data analysis and interpretation
Walkway = complete, continuous, safe, accessible Crosswalks
Visually active frontage
Street level activity Trees Seating Uses
Shade and shelter
Paveway obstructions Clean
Cars/hour Bus
Evening open
Street vendors
Art and entertainment
Colour contrast Quiet Graffiti
No. bands Width Height
Speed bumps
Signal at intersection
Garbage bins
Indicators influenced
% of walkscore
Walkway = complete, continuous, safe, accessible 1 1%Crosswalks 1 2%Visually active frontage 1 2%Street level activity 3 3%Trees 2 3%Seating 0 1%Uses 23 15%Shade and shelter 1 2%Paveway obstructions 1 2%Clean 0 1%Cars/hour 11 10%Bus 10 10%Evening open 9 9%Street vendors 3 3%Art and entertainment 7 5%Colour contrast 2 3%Quiet 0 1%Graffiti 1 2%No bands 8 9%Paveway width 5 5%Height 4 5%Speed bumps 0 1%Signal at intersection 2 3%Garbage bins 1 2%Indicators that influence it 18 6 7 6 6 1 1 4 5 5 2 2 1 2 1 3 6 3 2 4 1 4 4 2
9
Street
Walkway = complete, continuous, safe, accessible Crosswalks
Visually active frontage
Street level activity Trees Seating Uses
Shade and shelter
Paveway obstructions Clean
Cars/hour Bus
Evening open
Street vendors
Art and entertainment
Colour contrast Quiet Graffiti No bands Width Height
Speed bumps
Signal at intersection
Garbage bins
Arthur Verona 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
General Eremia Grigorescu 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Arthur Verona 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 0.5 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
George Enescu 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 1
Al. D. Xeonopol 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Jean Louis Calderon 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1 1
Al. D. Xeonopol 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
C. A. Rosetti 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1 1
Piaţa Lahovari 0 0 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0.5 0 0.75 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 1 1
Jules Michelet 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 1 1 0 1
Magheru 1 1 1 0.5 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 1 1
Piaţa Gh. Cantacuzino 0.5 0 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1
Calea Dorobanţi (Romană) 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.75 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 1
I. L. Caragiale 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0.75 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1
Piaţa Romană 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 1
Lascăr Catargiu 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 1
Dumbrava Roşie 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 1
Pitar Moş 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
Dionisie Lupu 0.5 1 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
Alee 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 0.5 0 0 1
Alee 7 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 0.5 0 0 1
Intrarea Armaşului 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 0
Intrarea Mareşal Iosif Pilsudski 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 1
Intrarea Sfatului 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.75 1 0 0 0 0 0
Cristofor Columb 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.75 1 1 0 0 0 0
Intrarea Dacilor 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.75 1 0 0 0 0 0
Table 4. Score for each analyzed indicator for the Grădina Icoanei area
Source: own data collected on field, analyzed using Microsoft Excel
10
Street
Walkway = complete, continuous, safe, accessible Crosswalks
Visually active frontage
Street level activity Trees Seating Uses
Shade and shelter
Paveway obstructions Clean
Cars/hour Bus
Evening open
Street vendors
Art and entertainment
Colour contrast Quiet Graffiti No bands Width Height
Speed bumps
Signal at intersection
Garbage bins
Finlanda 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 0.5 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0.75 1 1 1 0 1 0
Brazilia 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.75 1 1 0 0 0 1
Alee 2 1 0 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.75 1 1 0.5 1 0 1
Hatmanul Arbore 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1
Bulevardul Iancu de Hunedoara 1 1 1 0.5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 0.5 1 1 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 1
Calea Dorobanţi 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 1 0.75 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 1
Stockholm 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 1
Alee 5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 1
Axinte Uricariul 1 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 1 0 0.5 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 0
Stockholm 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0
Amman 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
Căderea Bastiliei 0.5 1 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1
Ocolire Amman 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.5 0 0 1
Alee 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.75 1 1 0.5 1 0 1
Alee 4 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 0.5 0 0 1
Albac 1 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
Alee 1 1 0 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.75 1 1 0.5 1 0 1
Axinte Uricariu 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.75 1 1 0.5 0 0 1
Naum Rânceanu 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
Washington Residence 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.75 1 0 1 0 0 0
Finalnda 2 0.5 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.75 1 0.5 1 0 0 0
Chile 1 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Finlanda 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.75 1 0.5 1 0 0 0
Lacul Sărat 1 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.5 0 0 1
Episcop Timuş 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 1
Ocolire Brazilia 1 0 0.5 1 1 0 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 0.5 0 0 0 0
Madrid 1 0 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 0.5 0 0 0 0
Table 5. Score for each analyzed indicator for the Dorobanţi area
Source: own data collected on field, analyzed using Microsoft Excel
11
Street
Walkway = complete, continuous, safe, accessible Crosswalks
Visually active frontage
Street level activity Trees Seating Uses
Shade and shelter
Paveway obstructions Clean
Cars/hour Bus
Evening open
Street vendors
Art and entertainment
Colour contrast Quiet Graffiti No bands Width Height
Speed bumps
Signal at intersection
Garbage bins
Iancu Cavaler de Flondor 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 1 0 1 1
Pache Protopopescu 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.75 0.5 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.5 0 1 1
Traian 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1
Vasile Vasilievici Stroescu 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 1 0 0 0
Ferdinand I 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.5 0 0.75 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 1
Căpitan Ion Vasilescu 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Lirei 1 0 1 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Pictor Ion Andreescu 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.75 1 0 1 0 0 0
Horei 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
Table 6. Score for each analyzed indicator for the Iancului area
Source: own data collected on field, analyzed using Microsoft Excel
12
Street Score Street Score Street ScoreArthur Verona 0.795 Finlanda 0.675 Iancu Cavaler de Flondor 0.735
General Eremia Grigorescu 0.745 Brazilia 0.67 Pache Protopopescu 0.72
Arthur Verona 1 0.715 Alee 2 0.665 Traian 0.705
George Enescu 0.69 Hatmanul Arbore 0.655 Vasile Vasilievici Stroescu 0.665
Al. D. Xeonopol 0.675 Bulevardul Iancu de Hunedoara 0.65 Ferdinand I 0.59
Jean Louis Calderon 0.655 Calea Dorobanţi 0.645 Căpitan Ion Vasilescu 0.59
Al. D. Xeonopol 1 0.635 Stockholm 0.645 Lirei 0.525
C. A. Rosetti 0.635 Alee 5 0.64 Pictor Ion Andreescu 0.465
Piaţa Lahovari 0.61 Axinte Uricariul 0.63 Horei 0.435
Jules Michelet 0.6 Stockholm 1 0.62 TOTAL 0.60Magheru 0.595 Amman 0.615
Piaţa Gh. Cantacuzino 0.585 Căderea Bastiliei 0.61
Calea Dorobanţi (Romană) 0.575 Ocolire Amman 0.605
I. L. Caragiale 0.555 Alee 3 0.6
Piaţa Romană 0.555 Alee 4 0.6
Lascăr Catargiu 0.555 Albac 0.6
Dumbrava Roşie 0.535 Alee 1 0.59
Pitar Moş 0.515 Axinte Uricariu 0.57
Dionisie Lupu 0.485 Naum Rânceanu 0.545
Alee 6 0.425 Washington Residence 0.545
Alee 7 0.425 Finalnda 2 0.535
Intrarea Armaşului 0.415 Chile 0.5
Intrarea Mareşal Iosif Pilsudski 0.41 Finlanda 1 0.48
Intrarea Sfatului 0.315 Lacul Sărat 0.48
Cristofor Columb 0.315 Episcop Timuş 0.475
Intrarea Dacilor 0.29 Ocolire Brazilia 0.46
TOTAL 0.55 Madrid 0.43
TOTAL 0.59
ResultsTable 3. Walkability score for the analyzed areas A. Grădina Icoanei B. Dorobanţi C. Iancului
A B C
Source: own data collected on field 13
AB
C
Fig. 8. Walkability score: A. Grădina Icoanei; B. Iancului; C. DorobanţiSource: own data collected on field, edited in ArcGis
14
15
CBA
CBA
Fig. 10. Streets with lowest walkability score in each area
Source: own data
A. Intrarea DacilorB. MadridC. Horei
Fig. 9. Streets with highest walkability score in each area
Source: own data
A. Arthur VeronaB. FinlandaC. Iancu Cavaler de
Flondor
Limitations• Small analyzed area;• No sociological analysis regarding how many people choose to walk and the reasons why
they do that;• Limited number of indicators;• Street level score for every indicator;• Same indicators can be both a positive or a negative factor for walkability;• Some indicators depend on the moment of day the analysis is made;• On some streets one indicator can have in reality a much greater impact than it has
generally on other streets, according to the formula – this change in impact is notreflected by the final score.
16
Preliminary results:Mainly short walks to bus station or small
shop; Just walking only in central area;
Most people would walk more if the streets were less crowded and there would be more
vegetation and sitting places.
Solutions – General Theory of Walkability
1. A proper reason to walk
19th century – the house away from the mills A. Duany & E. Plater Zyberg founded the new urbanism movement
2 ways to build:- Everything together (A);- Euclidean zoning (B).
17Fig. 11. Building approaches from A. Amman street, B. Lirei streetSource: own data
A B
2. Safety
Trees (A)Number of lanes (B)Block size (C)City form (D)Oversized streets (E)
18
ED
CBA
Fig. 12. Negative examples of safety street level element
Source: own data
A. Pictor Ion AndreescuB. MagheruC. Hatmanul ArboreD. George EnescuE. Piaţa Romană
3. Comfortable
Edges (B)Height to width ratio (A, D)No “missing teeth” (C)Clean (E)
19
EDC
BA
Fig. 13. Street level aspects relating the
“comfortable” elementSource: own data
A. LireiB. Jean Louis CalderonC. AlbacD. Axinte UricariuE. Chile
4. Interesting walk
Signs of humanityArt and entertainment
20
Fig. 14. Street level aspects relating the “interesting walk” element
Source: own data
A. Iancu de HunedoaraB. Jules MichletC. MagheruD. Axinte UricariuE. DorobanţiF. General Erimia GrigorescuG. StockholmH. Pitar MoşI. Arthur Verona
A B C
D E F
G H I
6. Enjoyable
6. Enjoyable
5. Comfortable
5. Comfortable
4. Convenient4. Convenient
3. Safe3. Safe
2. Accessible2. Accessible
1. Passable1. Passable
Final Goal
Fig. 15. Pyramid of hierarchy of needs in relation to walkabilitySource: Quality of Life in European Cities report, 2015, European Commission 21
How to implement those solutions?
• 3 levels of intervention proposal
LEVEL METHOD TYPE OF INTERVENTION
Citywide Walkability comparison (PUG) Urban planning, zoning, growth control policies, subdivision planning
Neighborhood Walkability assessment (PUZ) Urban planning, zoning, building regulations, street design
Street Walkability design check-list (PUD) Street design, urban design
Table 7. Method and type of intervention proposed for every level
Source: bibliographical research, own data analysis and interpretation
22
BibliographyAziz, H.A., Park, B.H., Morton, A., Stewart, R.N., Hilliard, M. and Maness, M., 2018. A highresolution agent-based model to support walk-bicycle infrastructure investment decisions: A case studywith New York City. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 86, pp.280-299.
Barros, A.P., Martínez, L.M. and Viegas, J.M., 2017. How urban form promotes walkability?.Transportation research procedia, 27, pp.133-140.
Bereitschaft, B., 2018. Exploring perceptions of creativity and walkability in Omaha, NE. City, Cultureand Society.
Bödeker, M., Finne, E., Kerr, J. and Bucksch, J., 2018. Active travel despite motorcar access. A city-wide, GIS-based multilevel study on neighborhood walkability and active travel in Germany. Journal ofTransport & Health.
Cavoli, C., 2017, Past, Present and Future Mobility challenges and opportunities in Bucharest,Bucharest
European Commission, 2016, Quality of life in European Cities in 2015, Luxembourg
Ferrer, S. and Ruiz, T., 2018. The impact of the built environment on the decision to walk for shorttrips: evidence from two Spanish cities. Transport policy, 67, pp.111-120.
Habibian, M. and Hosseinzadeh, A., 2018. Walkability index across trip purposes. Sustainable Citiesand Society, 42, pp.216-225.
Hall, C.M. and Ram, Y., 2018. Walk score® and its potential contribution to the study of activetransport and walkability: A critical and systematic review. Transportation Research Part D: Transportand Environment.
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2018, Pedestrians first – Tools for a walkable city,New York
Jung, H., Lee, S.Y., Kim, H.S. and Lee, J.S., 2017. Does improving the physical street environmentcreate satisfactory and active streets? Evidence from Seoul’s Design Street Project. Transportationresearch part D: transport and environment, 50, pp.269-279.
Knight, J., Weaver, R. and Jones, P., 2018. Walkable and resurgent for whom? The uneven geographiesof walkability in Buffalo, NY. Applied Geography, 92, pp.1-11.
Koohsari, M.J., Sugiyama, T., Hanibuchi, T., Shibata, A., Ishii, K., Liao, Y. and Oka, K., 2018. Validityof Walk Score® as a measure of neighborhood walkability in Japan. Preventive medicine reports, 9,pp.114-117.
Lai, Y. and Kontokosta, C.E., 2018. Quantifying place: Analyzing the drivers of pedestrian activity indense urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, pp.166-178.
Lee, E. and Dean, J., 2018. Perceptions of walkability and determinants of walking behaviour amongurban seniors in Toronto, Canada. Journal of Transport & Health.
Minh, N.Q., 2016. Application of “Car-Free City” and “City of Short Walks” to living quarters in Hanoitowards sustainable mobility and logistics. Procedia engineering, 142, pp.284-291.
Moniruzzaman, M. and Páez, A., 2016. An investigation of the attributes of walkable environmentsfrom the perspective of seniors in Montreal. Journal of transport geography, 51, pp.85-96.
Nilles, M. and Kaparias, I., 2018. Investigating the relation of highway design standards with network-level walkability: The case study of Luxembourg. International Journal of Transportation Science andTechnology.
Primăria Municipiului Bucureşti, 2017, Masterplanul de transport urban Bucureşti, Bucureşti
Rafiemanzelat, R., Emadi, M.I. and Kamali, A.J., 2017. City sustainability: the influence of walkabilityon built environments. Transportation research procedia, 24, pp.97-104.
Sdoukopoulos, A., Verani, E., Nikolaidou, A., Gavanas, N., Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M., Mikiki, F.,Mademli, E. and Pallas, C., 2017. Development and implementation of walkability audits in Greekmedium-sized cities: the case of the Serres’ city centre. Transportation research procedia, 24, pp.337-344.
Singh, R., 2016. Factors affecting walkability of neighborhoods. Procedia-Social and BehavioralSciences, 216, pp.643-654.
Speck, J., 2017, 4 ways to make a city more walkable, TedTalks, https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_4_ways_to_make_a_city_more_walkable?language=en
Speck, J., 2013, The walkable city, TedTaks, https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_the_walkable_city?language=en
Yin, L., 2017. Street level urban design qualities for walkability: Combining 2D and 3D GIS measures.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 64, pp.288-296.
23
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
Questions and Discussion
Source: http://walk21vienna.com/conference-program/walkshops/walkshop-15/
24