Understanding the Walkability Propensity

Marialisa Nigro, Marco Petrelli, Rasa Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, Daiva Žilionienė


Walkability analysis has grown in popularity in recent years: several studies have analysed the public health, economic, environmental, transportation and other benefits of promoting walkability. Different authors in the literature focus on the analysis of walking indicators related to the structure of the road network to explain the walkability of an area. However, extra efforts have to be made to study many other conditions that affect the propensity to walk: not just the shape of the network and the urban topology, but also the security and the attractiveness of the landscape, or specific characteristics of the infrastructure such as the size of the sidewalks, the automobile accommodation values (automobile and motorcycle parking) and the pedestrian route difficulty (slope and over length of the paths, dead-end streets). This paper aims to understand the walkability propensity, investigating explanatory variables related to the concept of the pedestrian path quality at the microscopic level. Several data have been collected in different zones of the Rome City (Italy), utterly dissimilar from the pedestrian point of view. These data have been compared with the real path for pedestrian choices and with other standard walkability measures from literature.


pedestrian path choice; quality measures; walkability; walkability measures

Full Text:



Bernick, M., & Cervero, R. (1997). Transit villages in the 21st century. New York, NY United States: McGraw-Hill, Incorporated. ISBN: 0070054754.

Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6

Cervero, R., Sarmiento, O. L., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L. F., & Neiman, A. (2009). Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: lessons from Bogotá. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 3(4), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568310802178314

Dill, J. (2004, January). Measuring network connectivity for bicycling and walking. In 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (pp. 11–15). Washington, DC.

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1780), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.3141/1780-10

Frank, L. D., Schmid, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Chapman, J., & Saelens, B. E. (2005). Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form. American journal of preventive medicine, 28(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.11.001

Gori, S., Nigro, M., & Petrelli, M. (2014). Walkability indicators for pedestrian-friendly design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2464), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.3141/2464-05

Handy, S., Paterson, R. G., & Butler, K. (2003). Planning for street connectivity: getting from here to there. No. PAS Report No. 515.

Jacobs, A. B. (1993). Great streets. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262100489.

Lee, C., & Moudon, A. V. (2006). The 3Ds+ R: quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 11(3), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2006.02.003

Manual, H. C. (2010). HCM2010. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Peponis, J., & Wineman, J. (2002). Spatial structure of environment and behavior. In R. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 271-291). John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Porta, S., & Renne, J. L. (2005). Linking urban design to sustainability: formal indicators of social urban sustainability field research in Perth, Western Australia. Urban Design International, 10(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000136

Rodríguez, D. A., Khattak, A. J., & Evenson, K. R. (2006). Can new urbanism encourage physical activity? Comparing a new Urbanist neighborhood with conventional suburbs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976723

Schlossberg, M. (2006). From TIGER to audit instruments: measuring neighborhood walkability with street data based on geographic information systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the transportation research board, (1982), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.3141/1982-08

Song, Y., & Knaap, G. J. (2004). Measuring urban form: is Portland winning the war on sprawl?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976371

Zhang, M., & Kukadia, N. (2005). Metrics of urban form and the modifiable areal unit problem. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1902), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.3141/1902-09

DOI: 10.7250/bjrbe.2018-13.408


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Marialisa Nigro, Marco Petrelli, Rasa Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, Daiva Žilionienė

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.