Abstract
Encouraging people to walk and use public transport can be a beneficial approach to tackle social and environmental issues associated with traffic and transportation. To motivate walking as a mode of choice of people, policymakers need to accord importance to pedestrians’ needs and expectations. Developing countries like India are lacking proper design guidelines for safer pedestrian infrastructure. With this background, it is essential to understand the concept of pedestrian needs for a safe and comfortable walking environment in Indian cities and provide a framework for planners to develop proper design guidelines for pedestrian infrastructures. The present study enhances the comprehension of decision-making process of pedestrians using Analytical Hierarchy Process to acquire priorities for various criteria that affects pedestrians’ choice of walking. A questionnaire survey was conducted in ten zones of Thiruvananthapuram city (Kerala, India) to recognize pedestrian priorities for walking characteristics within four main criteria: ‘Safety,’ ‘Security,’ ‘Comfort and Convenience’ and ‘Mobility and Infrastructure’ identified based on literature review. The study found that pedestrians perceived ‘Safety’ as the most important factor than conventionally used pedestrian infrastructure design factor ‘Mobility and Infrastructure.’ This paper also found a possible approach to quantify the importance of qualitative attributes that are applicable to pedestrian decision process. The findings of this study highlighted the importance of pedestrian-oriented assessment in better understanding of their decision-making process. These results will help urban planners and experts to rank the attributes defining the hierarchy of pedestrian needs and allocating investments into pedestrian facilities based on the needs and expectations of pedestrians.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ariffin, R. N. R., & Zahari, R. K. (2013). Perceptions of the urban walking environments. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,105, 589–597.
Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M., & Shah, M. Z. (2014). A pedestrian level of service method for evaluating and promoting walking facilities on campus streets. Land Use Policy,38, 175–193.
Ashalatha, R., Manju, V. S., & Zacharia, A. B. (2012). Mode choice behavior of commuters in Thiruvananthapuram City. Journal of Transportation Engineering,139(5), 494–502.
Bharucha, J. (2017). An investigation into the walkability problem in Indian cities. Safer Communities,16(2), 77–86.
Bivina, G. R., Gupta, A., & Parida, M. (2019). Influence of microscale environmental factors on perceived walk accessibility to metro stations. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,67, 142–155.
Bivina, G. R., Parida, P., Advani, M., & Praida, M. (2018a). Quality of service model for evaluating and improving sidewalks from various land uses. European Transport/Trasport Europei, Issue 67, Paper No. 2, ISSN 1825-3997.
Bivina, G. R., Sapnani, S., & Parida, M. (2018b). Modelling perceived pedestrian level of service of sidewalks: An application of structural equation modelling. In Presented in committee meeting in the 95th transportation research board annual meeting, Washington, D.C (TRB, 2018).
Borst, H. C., de Vries, S. I., Graham, J. M., van Dongen, J. E., Bakker, I., & Miedema, H. M. (2009). Influence of environmental street characteristics on walking route choice of elderly people. Journal of Environmental Psychology,29(4), 477–484.
Census of India. (2011). http://www.census2011.co.in/. Accessed 15 Jan 2017.
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.
Christopoulou, P., & Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M. (2012). Development of a model for the estimation of pedestrian level of service in Greek urban areas. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,48, 1691–1701.
Clifton, K. J., Smith, A. D. L., & Rodriguez, D. (2007). The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landscape and Urban Planning,80(1–2), 95–110.
Dowling, R., Flannery, A., Landis, B., Petritsch, T., Rouphail, N., & Ryus, P. (2008). Multimodal level of service for urban streets. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,2071, 1–7.
Evenson, K. R., Sotres-Alvarez, D., Herring, A. H., Messer, L., Laraia, B. A., & Rodríguez, D. A. (2009). Assessing urban and rural neighborhood characteristics using audit and GIS data: derivation and reliability of constructs. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,6(1), 44.
Gallin, N. (2001). Quantifying pedestrian friendliness–guidelines for assessing pedestrian level of service. Road & Transport Research,10(1), 47.
Handy, S. (1996). Urban form and pedestrian choices: study of Austin neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,1552, 135–144.
IRC:103-2012. (2012). Guidelines for pedestrian facilities. New Delhi: The Indian Roads Congress.
Jeon, C. M., Amekudzi, A. A., & Guensler, R. L. (2010). Evaluating plan alternatives for transportation system sustainability: Atlanta metropolitan region. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation,4(4), 227–247.
Kang, H. Y., & Lee, A. H. (2007). Priority mix planning for semiconductor fabrication by fuzzy AHP ranking. Expert Systems with Applications,32(2), 560–570.
Kim, S., Park, S., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Meso-or micro-scale? Environmental factors influencing pedestrian satisfaction. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,30, 10–20.
Koh, P. P., & Wong, Y. D. (2013). Comparing pedestrians’ needs and behaviours in different land use environments. Journal of Transport Geography,26, 43–50.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement,30(3), 607–610.
Landis, B., Vattikuti, V., Ottenberg, R., McLeod, D., & Guttenplan, M. (2001). Modeling the roadside walking environment: pedestrian level of service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,1773, 82–88.
Leather, J., Fabian, H., Gota, S., & Mejia, A. (2011). Walkability and pedestrian facilities in asian cities state and issues. No. 17(2011) (ed AD Bank). Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
Lo, R. H. (2009). Walkability: what is it? Journal of Urbanism,2(2), 145–166.
Marisamynathan, S., & Vedagiri, P. (2017). Modeling pedestrian level of service at signalized intersection under mixed traffic conditions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,2634, 86–94.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). The instinctoid nature of basic needs. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1954.tb01136.x.
Mateo-Babiano, I. (2016). Pedestrian’s needs matter: Examining Manila’s walking environment. Transport Policy,45, 107–115.
Mehta, V. (2008). Walkable streets: Pedestrian behavior, perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Urbanism,1(3), 217–245.
MoRTH. Ministry of Road Transport and highways. (2003). Road accidents in India. Report, Transportation Research Wing, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India.
MoUD. Ministry of Urban Development. (2008). Study on traffic and transportation policies and strategies in urban areas in India. Ministry of Urban Development and Wilbur Smith Associates: Report.
NATPAC. National Transportation Planning and Research Centre. (2014). Annual Report. Transportation Planning and Research Wing.
NCRB. (2015). National Crime Record Board, Report, Urban Transport, Ministry of Home Affairs, http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2015/FILES/Compendium-15.11.16.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017.
NUTP. National Urban Transport Policy. (2006). Report, Urban Transport, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.
Oswald Beiler, M. R., & Phillips, B. (2015). Prioritizing pedestrian corridors using walkability performance metrics and decision analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and Development,142(1), 04015009.
Parida, P., Najamuddin, D., & Parida, M. (2007). Planning, design & operation of sidewalk facilities in Delhi. Highway Research Bulletin, Indian Roads Congress, Delhi (pp. 81–95).
Pikora, T. J., Bull, F. C., Jamrozik, K., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J. (2002). Developing a reliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,23(3), 187–194.
Pohekar, S. D., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,8(4), 365–381.
Rankavat, S., & Tiwari, G. (2016). Pedestrians perceptions for utilization of pedestrian facilities–Delhi, India. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,42, 495–499.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). Decision making for leaders: The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Said, M., Abou-Zeid, M., & Kaysi, I. (2016). Modeling satisfaction with the walking environment: the case of an Urban university neighborhood in a developing Country. Journal of Urban Planning and Development,143(1), 05016009.
Sallis, J. F., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., & Kraft, M. K. (2004). Active transportation and physical activity: Opportunities for collaboration on transportation and public health research. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,38(4), 249–268.
Sayyadi, G., & Awasthi, A. (2012). AHP-based approach for location planning of pedestrian zones: Application in Montréal, Canada. Journal of transportation engineering,139(2), 239–246.
Shafabakhsh, G., Mirzanamadi, R., & Mohammadi, M. (2015). Pedestrians’ mental satisfaction’s relationship with physical characteristics on sidewalks using analytical hierarchy process: case study of Tehran, Iran. Transportation Letters,7(3), 121–132.
Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the walkable city. Journal of Urban Planning and Development,131(4), 246–257.
Tiwari, G. (2016). Pedestrian safety in cities—Priorities for India’. In 6th Urban Mobility India Conference. Institute of Urban Transport, Delhi, India.
UTTIPEC. (2010). Unified Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure (Planning and Engineering) Centre Regulations. Annual Report.
Wang, Y., Chau, C. K., Ng, W. Y., & Leung, T. M. (2016). A review on the effects of physical built environment attributes on enhancing walking and cycling activity levels within residential neighborhoods. Cities,50, 1–15.
Washington, S. P., Karlaftis, M. G., & Mannering, F. (2010). Statistical and econometric methods for transportation data analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Wells, N. M., & Yang, Y. (2008). Neighborhood design and walking: a quasi-experimental longitudinal study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,34(4), 313–319.
World Bank. (2007). Strategic urban transport policy directions for Bangkok. Bangkok: Transport Development Partnership.
World Health Organization. (2013). Violence, injury prevention, & World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 2013: supporting a decade of action. World Health Organization.
Yedla, S., & Shrestha, R. M. (2003). Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,37(8), 717–729.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bivina, G.R., Parida, M. Prioritizing pedestrian needs using a multi-criteria decision approach for a sustainable built environment in the Indian context. Environ Dev Sustain 22, 4929–4950 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00381-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00381-w