Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Urban walkability assessment, a double examination by physical environment and users’ perceptions: The Case of Jijel City in Algeria

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sustainable urban development directives recognize walking in urban areas as gentle and environmental friendly mode of displacement within urban areas. This perception aligns with the concept of Eco citizenship of cities and has recently sparked interest among researchers in improving walkability within cities. This work aims at a double synchronized evaluation of the urbanized landscape comprising the walking spaces and the perception of users towards it in the Algerian context. To achieve this, a combined method is employed, involving a quantitative method for an objective assessment of the built-up framework, which is based on an urban audit through the MAPISE project (senior walkability), and a qualitative method for a subjective assessment of the users' perception using a survey. The urban walkability assessment methodology is implemented using the city of Jijel as a case study. By integrating both assessments, this study emphasizes the importance of considering objective and subjective evaluations. This study provides a novel understanding of the urban walkability, and its perception by Algerian City residents.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bouchair A et al (2013) Compact cities as a response to the challenging local environmental constraints in hot arid lands of Algeria. Energy Procedia 42:493–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bouchair A (2014) Sustainability features of vernacular architecture in Southern Algeria. In: Mileto C et al (eds) International conference on vernacular heritage, sustainability and earthen architecture. In: Vernacular Architecture: Towards a Sustainable Future, 1st edn. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Valencia, pp 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17393

  3. Alfonzo MA (2005) To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environ Behav 37(6):808–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown B et al (2008) Gender differences in children’s pathways to independent mobility. Children’s Geographies 6(4):385–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ewing R et al (2006) Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. J Phys Act Health 3(s1):S223–S240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mehta V (2008) Walkable streets: pedestrian behavior, perceptions and attitudes. J Urban 1(3):217–245

    Google Scholar 

  7. Southworth M (2005) Designing the walkable city. J Urban Plan Dev 131(4):246–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dörrzapf L et al (2019) Defining and assessing walkability: a concept for an integrated approach using surveys, biosensors and geospatial analysis. Urban Dev Issues 62(1):5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Singh R (2016) Factors affecting walkability of neighborhoods. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 216:643–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fitzsimons D'Arcy L (2013) A multidisciplinary examination of walkability: its concept, measurement and applicability. PhD thesis, Dublin City University

  11. McAslan D (2017) Walking and transit use behavior in walkable urban neighborhoods. Michigan J Sustain 5(1):51–71. https://doi.org/10.3998/mjs.12333712.0005.104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McAslan D (2018) Walking, transit use, and urban morphology in walkable urban neighborhoods: an examination of behaviors and attitudes in seattle. PhD thesis, University of Michigan

  13. Boukelouha R (2019) Définir la Marchabilité par la morphologie urbaine? Une revue de littérature. Annales de l’université d’Alger 33(4):776–800

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rodriguez DA, Khattak AJ, Evenson KR (2006) Can new urbanism encourage physical activity?: Comparing a new Urbanist neighborhood with conventional suburbs. J Am Plann Assoc 72(1):43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Takano T, Nakamura K, Watanabe M (2002) Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces. J Epidemiol Commun Health 56(12):913–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD (2003) Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med 25(2):80–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jabareen Y (2014) An assessment framework for cities coping with climate change: The case of New York City and its PlaNYC 2030. Sustainability 6(9):5898–5919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Forsyth A (2015) What is a walkable place? The walkability debate in urban design. Urban Des Int 20(4):274–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rafiemanzelat R, Emadi MI, Kamali AJ (2017) City sustainability: the influence of walkability on built environments. Trans Res Proc 24:97–104

    Google Scholar 

  20. Weinberger R, Sweet MN (2012) Integrating walkability into planning practice. Transp Res Rec 2322(1):20–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Porębska A et al (2019) Walkability and resilience: A qualitative approach to design for risk reduction. Sustainability 11(10):2878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Raulin F, Butzbach C, Negron-Poblette P, Poldma T, Lord S (2020) Vers l’amélioration de la marchabilité de la ville pour tous. Retour d’expérience sur l’aménagement de l’accessibilité autour d’un centre commercial à Montréal. Géocarrefour 94(94/4). https://doi.org/10.4000/geocarrefour.13323

  23. Thibaud J-P (2008) Je-tu-il, la marche aux trois personnes. Urbanisme 359:63–65

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thouin A (2016) L’environnement bâti et l’espace d’action piétonnier des aînés: le cas de Rouyn-Noranda. Université du Québec, Institut national de la recherche scientifique

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cloutier MS, Huguenin-Richard F, Granié MA, St-Louis A (2018) Audit de marchabilité au regard des contraintes liées au vieillissement: une étude comparative entre Montréal (Québec) et Lille (France). Audit de marchabilité: une étude comparative entre Montréal (Québec) et Lille (France). In: Vieillissement et aménagement. Perspectives plurielles (Sébastien Lord et Denise Piché), pp 161–168. https://hal.science/hal-01687616/

  26. Cloutier MS, Lachapelle K, Rancourt M (2021) Marchabilité: Critères à considérer et analyse à l’échelle macro et micro pour la Ville de Québec. Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Centre Urbanisation Culture Société, Les Auteurs, Montréal. https://espace.inrs.ca/id/eprint/11459

  27. Rizqi MZ, Hartanti NB (2020) Perception factors of pedestrian transit oriented development (tod) dukuh atas. Int J Livable Space 5(2):53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tarek M et al (2021) Investigating built environment indicators to develop a local walkability index. J Contemp Urban Aff 5(2):235–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Arshad AK, Bahari NI, Hashim W, Halim AA (2016) Gender differences in pedestrian perception and satisfaction on the walkability of Kuala Lumpur city center. In: The 3rd International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering for Sustainability (IConCEES 2015). In: MATEC web of conferences, vol 47. EDP Sciences, p 03003. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20164703003

  30. Golan Y et al (2019) Gendered walkability. J Trans Land Use 12(1):501–526

    Google Scholar 

  31. Maghelal P, Alawadi K, Wahdain A (2021) Gender difference in health condition among emirati adolescent: Role of environment and parent perceptions. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-623152/v1

Download references

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory “G.C.H”, Department of Architecture, University 8 Mai 1945, Guelma, Algeria

    Naima Boukrouh

  2. Research Laboratory “CBE”, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Jijel, 18000, Jijel, Algeria

    Ammar Bouchair

Authors
  1. Naima Boukrouh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ammar Bouchair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The content of the manuscript was prepared mainly by the first author, while the corresponding author oversaw, revised thoroughly, and organized the manuscript to meet the journal & apos;s necessary standard of quality and originality.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ammar Bouchair.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 8432 KB)

Appendix: The survey

Appendix: The survey

Q1: Regardless of whether you reside in the vicinity of "Bab-sour," suppose you are currently in the area and "Bab-sour" serves as your starting point, with the "market" as your desired destination on foot. Please indicate which of tracks 1, 2, 3, or 4 appears highly suitable for walking and would be your preferred choice. Similarly, identify which of tracks 1, 2, 3, or 4 seems entirely unsuitable for walking, prompting you to avoid it altogether? (Refer to Fig. 19 below).

 

Track 1

Track 2

Track 3

Track 4

The most favorable trajectory

    

The least favorable trajectory

    
Fig. 19
figure 19

Presents the four tracks processed by the authors via Google Earth

Full size image

Q2: Which criteria guided your selection process?

Criteria

Encourages you to choose walking in a certain track

Pushes you to avoid walking in a certain track

Road Type (Main Street/Secondary Road/Alley

  

Presence/absence of pavement

  

Pavement Width (Wide/Narrow)

  

Pavement quality (good or worn)

  

Quality of pavement cover (cement, tiles)

  

The aesthetic quality of the road (road cleanliness/ presence of green spaces….) /Lack thereof

  

Presence/ absence of pedestrian signage, pedestrian walkway

  

Presence or absence of traffic lights

  

Building height and density or reduction thereof

  

Intensity of mechanical motion, or low intensity

  

Density of pedestrian movement, or low density

  

Availability of general amenities (seating, waste containers, etc.), or lack thereof

  

Presence of lush trees along the road (shade factor)

  

Existence of shops with front displays for goods

  

Availability of public lighting (for nighttime walking), or lack thereof

  

Level of acoustic noise (low or absent)

  

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boukrouh, N., Bouchair, A. Urban walkability assessment, a double examination by physical environment and users’ perceptions: The Case of Jijel City in Algeria. J Build Rehabil 9, 92 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-024-00434-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-024-00434-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation