Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is street design and infrastructure perceived differently by persons of different ages, genders, and hierarchy of street?

  • Practice-oriented papers
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to promote pedestrianization, the city and state governments in India have implemented a variety of programs and projects aimed at improving pedestrian facilities through street design elements and infrastructure improvements. Tender S.U.R.E (Specifications for Urban Roads Execution) is one such initiative to promote the movement and safety of pedestrians in Bangalore. Based on selected parameters, this study attempts to understand how people interviewed at different streets under Tender S.U.R.E perceive these changes based on their age groups, gender and street hierarchy. Within the scope of this study, 10 streets (2 arterial, 3 sub-arterial, 3 collector, and 2 local roads) were considered under Tender S.U.R.E. To examine if gender, age, and street hierarchy affect pedestrian perception level, a Kruskal–Wallis test was performed using principal component analysis (PCA). The results from the data analysis suggest that for selected parameters, gender and road hierarchy did have a significant effect on perception level, while age did not have any significant difference in perception level. The results of this study will demonstrate why it is crucial to focus on pedestrian perception and how road hierarchy and the socio-economic profile of pedestrians are vital factors to be considered while improving pedestrian facilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ramanathan S (2011) Project TENDER S.U.R.E. Jana Space Urban Foundation, Bangalore

  2. Foundation I.U.S (2012) Goverment of Karnataka Project Tender S.U.R.E. Report. Indian Urban space foundation

  3. Transport IUT (2014) National Urban Transport Policy. Ministry of Urban Developmet, Goverment of India

  4. Bharucha J (2017) An investigation into the walkability problem in Indian cities. Safer Commun. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-02-2017-0010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Burlacu A (2012) Complete streets design concept. The 3rd Conference of the Young Researchers, Bucharest, Romania

  6. Basu N et al (2021) The unequal gender effects of the suburban built environment on perceptions of security. J Transp Health 23:101243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Adlakha D, Hipp J, Sallis J, Brownson R (2018) Exploring neighborhood environments and active commuting in Chennai, India. Int J Env Res Pub H 15(9):1840. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sheykhfard A et al (2021) Review and assessment of different perspectives of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and crashes: Passive and active analysis approaches. J Traffic Transp Eng (English Edition) 8(5):681–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2021.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Soares F et al (2021) To cross or not to cross: Impact of visual and auditory cues on pedestrians’ crossing decision-making. Transp Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 82:202–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. James L, Herbert F, Gota S, Mejia A (2010) Walkability and pedestrian facilities in Asian Cities: State and Issues, Asian Development Bank

  11. Mandhan S (2018) Adopted Spaces: How Social Life on India’s Streets is Increasingly Threatened by Top-down City Planning. Available: https://www.urbanet.info/street-design-india/

  12. Ismail W, Ja’afar N, Arabi F, Husini E (2018) Character of traditional street: an overview of physical components associated with building, landscape and street pattern in royal town. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 401:012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/401/1/012019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bertolini L (2020) From “streets for traffic” to “streets for people”: can street experiments transform urban mobility? Transp Rev 40(6):743–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1761907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harirchian M, Esmaeili M, Kermanshahi S (2018) A new perspective on urban street design. The transp res boa (TRB) 97th annual meeting

  15. Qemaqchi N, Al-Obeidy M (2018) A review paper on the role of commercial streets’ characteristics in influencing sense of place. Pertanika J Soc Sci Humanit 26(4):2825–2839

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gregg K (2018) Complete streets at the municipal level: a review of American municipal complete street policy. Int J Sustain Transp 13(6):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1476995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kingsbury K, Lowry M, Dixon M (2011) What makes a “complete street” complete?: a robust definition, given context and public input. Trans Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2245(1):103–110. https://doi.org/10.3141/2245-13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Coalition NCS (2018) The best complete streets policies of 2018. Smart Growth America, US

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ministry of Urban Developmet, Goverment of India (2013) Urban Road Code of Prcatice. Available: http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Urban%20Road%20Code%20of%20Practice.pdf

  20. UTTIPEC (2009) Street design guidelines for equitable distribution of road space NUTP, Delhi Development Authority, Delhi

  21. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (2020) Complete Street Design Manual Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai

  22. Tak R, Hirandas L (2020) Design elements to rejuvenate Indian Streets: A case of Bellasis Road, Mumbai. Available:https://wri-india.org/blog/design-elements-rejuvenate-indian-streets-case-bellasis-road-mumbai

  23. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (2019) Complete street best practices. National institute of urban affairs, Ministry of housing and urban affairs

  24. S Chandra et al (2017) Indian Highway Capacity Manual (Indo-HCM) Central Road Research Institute (CRRI), India

  25. Vijayawargiya V, Rokade S (2017) Identification of factors affecting pedestrian level of service of crosswalks at roundabouts. Int Res J Eng Tech (IRJET) 4(6):342–346

    Google Scholar 

  26. Guo H et al (2014) Modeling the perceptions and preferences of pedestrians on crossing facilities. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/949475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kinyingi J, Mugwima N, Karanja D (2020) Walkable Streets: A Study of Pedestrians’ Perception, and Attitude towards Ngei Street in Machakos Town. Curr Urban Stud 8(3):381–395. https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2020.83021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang W et al (2021) Data-driven simulation of pedestrian movement with artificial neural network. J Adv Transp. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5580910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ahmed M, Islam K (2017) Evaluation of Pedestrian Level of Service in Presence of Street Vendor: Kolkata. ASCE India Conference 2017, New Delhi. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482025.068

  30. Kanga Y, Fukahori K, Kubota Y (2018) Evaluation of the influence of roadside non-walking spaces on the pedestrian environment of a Japanese urban street. Sustain Cities Soc 43:21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dommesa A et al (2021) Young and older adult pedestrians’ behavior when crossing a street in front of conventional and self-driving cars. Accid Anal Prev 159:106256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Granié M et al (2013) Qualitative analysis of pedestrians’ perception of the urban environment when crossing streets. Advances in Transportation Studies pp 17–34

  33. Mo G et al (2017) Study of pedestrian crossing behavior at signalized intersection based on structural equation model. Adv Transp Stud 2:45–54

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hilsdorf M (2020) Cronbach’s Alpha: Theory and Application in Python. Available: https://towardsdatascience.com/cronbachs-alpha-theory-and-application-in-python-d2915dd63586

  35. “Engineering Statistics Handbook,” [Online]. Available: https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section2/prc213.htm

  36. Zwanenburg G et al (2011) ANOVA–principal component analysis and ANOVA–simultaneous component analysis: a comparison. J Chemom 25(10):561–567. https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.1400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bratchell N (1989) Multivariate response surface modelling by principal components analysis. J Chemom 3(4):579–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.1180030406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Saccenti E, Smilde A, Camacho J (2018) Group-wise ANOVA simultaneous component analysis for designed omics experiments. Metabolomics 14:73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-018-1369-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Maskeya R et al (2018) Use of exploratory factor analysis in maritime research. Asian J Shipp Logist 34(2):91–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee M et al (2021) Understanding the impact of the walking environment on pedestrian perception and comprehension of the situation. J Transp Health 23:101267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Davis S et al (2021) The influences of listening and speaking on pedestrians assessments of approaching vehicles. Transp Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 82:348–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Urban Science and Engineering (CUSE), Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, India

    Aditya Saxena

Authors
  1. Aditya Saxena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aditya Saxena.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Informed consent

Consent of participants was taken prior to data collection.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 701 kb)

Appendix A

Appendix A

The details regarding the survey questionnaire are attached below:

See Tables

Table 14 Socio-economic and travel behaviour survey
Full size table

14,

Table 15 Ranking and perception survey questionnaire
Full size table

15

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saxena, A. Is street design and infrastructure perceived differently by persons of different ages, genders, and hierarchy of street?. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 7, 278 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-022-00880-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-022-00880-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation