Influence of Environmental Design on Pedestrian Travel Behavior in Four Austin Neighborhoods

64 Paper No. 961076 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1578

Influence of Environmental Design onPedestrian Travel Behavior in Four Austin Neighborhoods

KATHERINE SHRIVER

114 East 31st Street, #206, Austin, Tex. 78705.

Results of a pedestrian survey conducted in two pairs of Austin, Texas,neighborhoods that possess either pedestrian-oriented or automobile-oriented transportation system, land use, and design characteristics butsimilar density, housing, and sociodemographic characteristics arereported. Survey results identify the influence of contrasting neighbor-hood forms on structural characteristics of walk-activity patterns andattitudes as mediated by personal characteristics. Walk-activity pat-terns significantly vary between neighborhoods with different accessi-bility characteristics. In the physically accessible neighborhoods, walksare predominantly short and frequent utilitarian trips that involve moresecondary activities. Activity in the less accessible neighborhoods ischaracterized by longer, less frequent recreational walks that involvefewer secondary activities. Results support the conclusion that neigh-borhood transportation, land use, and design characteristics influencewalk distance, duration, purpose, and number of secondary activities.The importance of walking in general and for specific purposes alsovaries with the relative levels of environmental variables. In the tradi-tional neighborhoods, walkable distances, access to transit, shops, andwork are more important, as is the opportunity to be outdoors. In themodern neighborhoods, walkway continuity, trees, and interestingthings to look at are more important environmental attributes, as is theopportunity to maintain health. Accessibility affects walk activities aswell as associated attitudes, but it is mediated through personal factorssuch as number of household cars, number of children, and householdsize. Evidence that pedestrians more highly value the available oppor-tunities for walking suggests that latent predilections towards walkingshape residential preferences.

The passage of linked federal mandates between surface transporta-tion and clean air legislation provides governmental authorities withfunding and incentives to explore nonmotorized transportationoptions. As means of addressing community problems such as airquality, health, safety, and vitality of neighborhoods, these optionsremain the subject of debate. A slight increase in research thatincludes analysis of pedestrian travel behavior is encouraging; yet,the data remain scarce and the findings are somewhat inconclusive.The few published transportation studies designed to analyze pedes-trian data focus on transport benefits of land use patterns, especiallythe potential for neighborhoods with local accessibility characteris-tics to induce a mode shift by reducing dependence on cars for local,discretionary trips (1–3). Although the nontransport benefits of walk-ing are documented (4), there is little understanding of the underly-ing dimensions of attractiveness of walking, and the nontransportbenefits of walkable neighborhoods have yet to be quantified in ananalysis that is relevant to transportation policy. Research gaps, a lackof data, and weak analytical tools hinder the evaluation of policiesand programs developed to meet the recommended national policygoal of increasing nonmotorized trips from 8 to 15 percent (4).

Such impediments merit attention because more accurate mea-sures and methods should be developed to offer insight about thecharacteristics of people who walk and the perceived aspects ofpedestrian environments that constrain or facilitate walking. Pedes-trian activity occurs as a function of physical and behavioral char-acteristics that influence individual travel decisions. As the averagewalk distance is 1.29 km (0.8 mi) (5), this study was designed tomeasure the structure of individual walk-activity patterns in waysthat indicate an ease of movement (1). Because walking alsorequires physical exertion, exposure to the elements, and proximityto other people, another aim of this study was to measure individualattitudes about the constraints against walking as well as its bene-fits. To test how spatial and environmental characteristics contributeto pedestrian activity and attitudes, four Austin neighborhoods wereselected and characterized for their transportation infrastructure,development patterns, and design features. In the course of thisstudy, 214 surveys were collected from pedestrians en route in theseneighborhoods. The resulting data were used to compare the influ-ence of the alternate urban forms on significant walk-activity andattitudinal differences. Significant personal characteristics wereused to examine the possibility of latent tendencies to different walktrips and attitudes.

PRACTICES IN PEDESTRIAN RESEARCH

The environmental-behavioral research impulse has been guidedby the work of Jacobs (6), who claimed that informal social rela-tions of pedestrians in urban communities are the touchstone ofpublic safety and community identity. Early studies involved ob-servations of pedestrians and compared the influence of small-scale surroundings on face-to-face interactions (7). Cultural normsfor street use vary, but they include dynamic coming and goingactivity such as walking and running, as well as more static orstaying actions such as sitting and standing (8). One study foundthat although frequency rates between dynamic and static activi-ties were equal, staying activities made up 90 percent of the totaltime spent on streets (9). Performance-based studies, designed toobserve public behavior, found that successful use of sidewalksand other public areas depends on interlinks between public andprivate space. Seating, trees, building frontage, and maintenanceare key factors (10). The evaluative exploration of relationshipsbetween pedestrian behavior and attitudes has identified that characteristics of places where perception of safety is a probleminclude isolated areas with low visibility, broken windows andlights, graffiti, and strewn garbage; and perceptions of safety,comfort, and cleanliness are necessary for successful pedestrian

Shriver Paper No. 961076 65

activity (11–13). The environmental-behavioral approach is one that is sensitive to minutiae of pedestrian behavior. Thesemethods are critical to pedestrian transportation research becauserecords of firsthand experience provide an analytical basis fordeveloping insights that may not be obtained from data alone. Yet,few studies have measured activity in ways that are adaptable totransportation policy.

Several travel behavior studies have measured walking as atravel mode by relating randomly surveyed travel and householdcharacteristics with spatial or environmental determinants. Whilecontrolling for gender, employment, and auto availability, a studyof Swedish household travel survey data found that indicators ofgreater accessibility, or respondents’ location in relation to the dis-tribution and density of potential sites for activities, correlate withmore nonmotorized travel and shorter discretionary travel dis-tances (14). From an analysis of a Portland, Oregon, householdtravel diary data set, it was concluded that characteristics thatreduce trip length and increase the choice to walk include narrowroads, street connectivity, continuous sidewalks, and zonal house-hold density, as well as proximity to commercial uses and transit(2). A comparative evaluation of local accessibility characteristicson rates of walks to shop or to stroll in four San Francisco areacommunities found that although shopping trips were significantlygreater in locally accessible neighborhoods, strolling trips werenot (1). The travel-behavior approach has been sensitive towhether accessibility is determined by physical factors that inducea substitution of walking for driving trips or by personal factorsthat explain an individual tendency to walk. However, mostresearch designs have limited examination of walking to trip fre-quency rates or travel distance and overlooked critical details ofpedestrian activity and attitudes.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To integrate environmental-behavioral and travel behavior meth-ods in pedestrian research, this study was designed to conceptual-ize and measure more diverse characteristics of individuals andtheir walk trips. From these data, the study provides an intensiveanalysis of travel on foot and explores the effects of environmentalqualities on pedestrian travel behavior. The characteristic forms ofneighborhood environments, such as relationships between build-ings and streets, offer choices and have the potential to influencewalk-activity patterns. How would different neighborhood charac-teristics significantly influence patterns of pedestrian activity? Notall individuals have equivalent means and inclinations to partici-pate in different walk activities (15,16). To what considerationswould individuals with different orientations to major life deci-sions, such as household formation, be sensitive? How would theseconsiderations affect pedestrian activity and attitudes? Illuminatingthe interrelationships between individual and environmental con-straints and benefits with diverse characteristics of neighborhoodpedestrian travel should provide insights that have implications forfurther study of the environmental influences on pedestrian travelbehavior.

Selection of Four Austin Neighborhoods

The first step involved the selection of two pairs of neighborhoodswith contrasting transportation, land use, and design characteristics

but similar density, housing, and population characteristics to con-trol for differences in the socioeconomic status of the survey partici-pants (17). Hyde Park has a central city location 1.6 km (1 mi) northof the University of Texas campus; Clarksville is in the urban core afew blocks west of the downtown; Barton Hills is across the Col-orado River in South Central Austin; Wells Branch is slightly beyondthe city limits and adjacent to the interstate highway (Figure 1).In a previous study, density was found to correlate with walk-trip frequency (2). Although the modern neighborhoods, Barton Hills and Wells Branch, are more populous and larger, they are not denser.The net residential population densities are greater in the traditionalneighborhoods, Hyde Park and Clarksville, by approximately eightpersons per hectare (three persons per acre) (Table 1). Age and homeownership were found in another study to negatively correlate with frequency of walks to shop and could be factors in this study (1). Approximately 13 percent more occupants in Hyde Park andClarksville are renters, and the ratio of single- to multifamily hous-ing is about 40:60, except in Barton Hills where there are about 20 percent more single-family units (Table 1). No previous researchhas identified a significant influence on walking due to the presenceof children or number of adults in a household; however, householdcharacteristics are closely associated with the two pairs of neighbor-hoods. In Hyde Park and Clarksville, there are more small house-holds of unrelated individuals: 65 to 75 percent are single individualsin their late 20s and early 30s who live alone or with housemates.Half the households in Barton Hills and Wells Branch are older andmore cohesive: 7.4 percent more households than in Hyde Park andClarksville are married couples with children (Table 1).

Characteristics of Traditional and ModernNeighborhoods

The four neighborhoods were selected as pairs of two developmenttypes to distinguish pedestrian activity and attitudes among walk-ers in neighborhoods with differing formal characteristics but sim-ilar demographics. The appearance of all four neighborhoods ispleasant and safe for walking, and pedestrian activity occurs ineach; however, two of these neighborhoods possess more charac-teristics established in the literature as elements of walkable places(Table 2). Differences between the neighborhood transportation,land use, and design features are emphasized because accessibilitycharacteristics such as street layout, mixed use, building setback,and amount of outdoor seating have been found to influence walktrip frequency and length (1–3,10). Once the neighborhood envi-ronments have been characterized, distinguishable patterns ofactivity and attitudes that closely associate with the neighborhoodenvironments will be analyzed. Personal characteristics of partici-pants will be used to examine latent orientations that may motivatebehavioral-attitudinal links.

Transportation System

The neighborhood potential for ease of movement between destina-tions has been characterized by number and type of blocks and inter-sections, and has been defined as local accessibility (1). Clarksvilleand Hyde Park possess grid layouts with shorter blocks and moreintersections, as well as straight streets, alleys, and no culs-de-sac(Figure 2). These characteristics provide more connections anddirect routes in more directions; there is greater potential for route

FIGURE 1 Location of traditional and modern neighborhoods in Austin, Texas.


TABLE 1 Population, Household, Housing, and Density Characteristicsa

choice (Table 2). If the street layout equates with access for moremembers of the community, it may be a determinant of a walk-trippurpose because actual and perceived distances are walkable. Con-versely, the street layouts of Barton Hills and Wells Branch are char-acterized by winding roads with off-set T intersections from whichdiscontinuous streets and culs-de-sac that accommodate greenbelttrail corridors are extended (Figure 3). There are 32 percent fewerfour-way intersections and half the street connections to arterials atneighborhood borders (Table 2). Fewer route choices along wind-ing roads require circuitous walking paths to reach destinations andmay discourage some walk trips (18,19). However, the presence oftrails combined with reduced through traffic may be conducive tomore recreational walking activities.

Land Use

A second neighborhood characteristic is its potential for economicinteraction. Measures of this potential have been defined as opportunity-accessibility (14). This is the number, variety, type, andlocation of destinations that may be comfortably reached on foot, aswell as their match with resident needs (1). Six times more officesites and 4.5 times more government and community centers arewithin walking distance along the traditional neighborhood borders,at intersections, and as stand-alone units (Figure 2). This dispersedconfiguration may encourage walk travel characteristic of localaccessibility because a greater variety of opportunities provide more

potential for pedestrian-travel cost and time savings (1,2,14). Bothmodern subdivisions contain large residential zones of single- ormultifamily housing segregated from nonresidential uses (Figure 3).The number of nonresidential uses located in Wells Branch is com-parable with that in the traditional neighborhoods, but they are con-centrated in large strip centers along principal arterials that borderthe communities (Table 2). Beyond areas where commercial andmultifamily residential uses are contiguous, walking distancesbetween housing and commercial services are greater than averageand may discourage utilitarian walk trips.

Urban Design

A third neighborhood characteristic is the potential of its streets toencourage people to participate in street life. Pleasant, functionallinks between public areas of a street and private areas of a propertymay have this potential (9,19,20). Traditional neighborhood char-acteristics such as shorter building setbacks or porches with outdoorseating may encourage activity because there is greater potential forinformal social experiences (Table 2). Conversely, homes in themodern neighborhoods are set back from the street an additional 3 m (10 ft), and approximately 60 percent more off-street parking isavailable (Table 2). Commercial sites in all four neighborhoodshave a similar number of parking spaces but their arrangement andrelation to adjacent land uses differ. Modern neighborhood stripcenters supply more parking for fewer commercial uses, do not


TABLE 2 Transportation, Land Use, and Design Characteristics

supply public seating, and separate building entrances from the side-walk (Table 2). Less walking and general activity may occur in thestreets or near commercial centers of the two modern communities;however, outdoor activity might concentrate at parks, greenbelts, orschoolyards.

Survey Strategy and Implementation

To obtain a representative sample of walkers and associated walk datathat is both comprehensive and random, the placement and number ofsurvey locations were determined before the neighborhood-interceptsurvey was conducted (21). Survey sites in each neighborhood werecarefully selected to record activities at transition areas between eithera park, a commercial center, and a single- or a multifamily residentialarea (Figures 2 and 3). Time exposure was controlled; data at each sitewere collected for 3 hr. Data were collected with the use of a 32-itemsurvey; the survey was conducted by having walkers who were passing by identify characteristics of their particular walk trip, rateimportance of environmental and attitudinal constraints and facilita-tors to walking, and provide personal information. Collectionoccurred during daylight and twilight hours between 3 and 9 p.m. and

on weekdays and weekends in the fall of 1994 when temperaturesaveraged 20°C (68°F).

Different Walk-Activity Patterns in Traditional andModern Neighborhoods

Differences between the pairs of neighborhoods with predominantlypedestrian- or automobile-oriented characteristics should explainsignificant variance in walk-activity patterns. The frequency and distance of walk trips have been linked in previous studies to areaswith greater accessibility. To characterize neighborhood walks forthis comparison, the structural patterns of walk travel were measuredwith estimated walk distance, duration, and frequency. The trip purpose and the number and type of secondary activities were mea-sured to describe what each pedestrian does (Table 3). These rangefrom commutes and utilitarian walks to those for recreational orsocial purposes, and explain walk patterns by emphasizing actionsmore than links. The number of secondary activities, in addition to the primary purpose of a walk (11), was recorded to characterizethe intensity of pedestrian activity, defined as walk magnitude. It is hypothesized that the magnitude of a walk characterizes an

FIGURE 2 Street and land use characteristics of two traditional neighborhoods.

FIGURE 3 Street and land use characteristics of two modern neighborhoods.


TABLE 3 Walk Purpose, Distance, Duration, and Magnitudea

accessibility that is not only determined by more potential choicesdue to spatial and environmental characteristics, but by an individualdemand to engage in multiple activities during a walk.

Walk Purpose, Distance, and Duration

Walk duration and distance are factors that affect travel time andcost and are basic considerations in the individual decision towalk. Measures of these travel characteristics may reflect differ-ences in the neighborhood environments. The share of walk pur-poses, their distance, and duration significantly vary between theneighborhood pairs. As three times more respondents walk tocommute and 65 percent more walk on errands, the share of utili-tarian walks is greater in the traditional neighborhoods. Con-versely, the percentage of recreational walks dominate in thenewer suburbs, with 86 percent more participants who walk toexercise or who walk their dog (Table 3).

Walk-trip structure also varies with different activity classification.Distances for most purposes are significantly lower in traditional

neighborhoods: walks to shop are 18 percent shorter, other errandsand exercise walks are approximately one-third shorter, and walkswith the dog are half the distance of walks for the same purpose in themodern neighborhoods (Table 3). All walk durations are lower in thetraditional neighborhoods; walks to exercise are about 15 min shorterand, at an average of 24 min, walks with the dog are about half as long(Table 3). These results support two studies that found correlationsbetween greater local accessibility and shorter walk-trip distances(2,13). The greater internal connectivity of the street network and themore dispersed arrangement of a wider variety of land uses providea potential for more direct routes and destination choices in the tradi-tional neighborhoods. These characteristics are probable determi-nants of the significant variation of walk patterns between theseneighborhood types.

The implication thus far is that spatial and environmental factors are more important than individual factors. However, fur-ther analysis indicates that utilitarian and recreational walk activ-ities have been found to have distinct structural characteristicsregardless of neighborhood form. In all four neighborhoods, util-itarian walk distance and duration for commuting, shopping, and


reaching transportation are shorter and recreational walks for exer-cise, walking the dog, and socializing are longer (Table 3). At 1.73 km (1.07 mi), the average distance of shopping trips is 60 per-cent shorter than exercise walks [4.47 km (2.78 mi)] and com-mutes [1.53 km (.95 mi)] are approximately 40 percent shorterthan walks with the dog [2.64 km (1.64 mi)]. Small investments oftime may be important to the value of utilitarian walks such as per-sonal errands, more substantial investments of time are essentialto the value of recreational walks, and individual investment intime and distance seem integral to the benefit of different walkactivities. The implication is that, to an extent, an individual eval-uation of what is important about walking also is an explanatoryfactor in variation of walk structural characteristics.

Number of Secondary Activities

The number of secondary activities was recorded to indicate theindividual actions of a pedestrian and the decision to maximizeutility of potential choices in the environment (16). In all fourneighborhoods approximately 11 percent of respondents con-ducted no secondary activities during their walks. Most respon-dents indicated one to three secondary activities, especially in themodern neighborhoods where 25 percent more walks of thismedium magnitude occur (Table 3). A significant number ofrespondents in traditional neighborhoods, 87 percent more,engaged in four or more secondary activities. Walk magnitude isan observable behavior that characterizes activity. Given that spa-tial distribution and variety of destinations affect travel time and cost, the relative potential for convenience available to walk-ers in their neighborhoods may be an explanatory factor of walkmagnitude. However, the individual decision to utilize potentialopportunities may characterize a desire to achieve a maximumutility of the opportunity for convenience, a desire to be busy, oreven a curiosity-seeking aspect of walking. Walk magnitude maymeasure an interrelation between a personal orientation and theneighborhood environment.

Attitudes and Personal Characteristics of Pedestrians

Perceived value as a determinant in choosing walk activities wasstudied to probe underlying values and explore reasons forobserved behavior. Testing the influence of attitudes on differentpedestrian activities identifies ways in which walking fulfills per-sonal goals, given different formal characteristics (15,16). Inter-view techniques have been used in previous studies to record actualpedestrian interaction (12), mail-in questionnaires have been usedto measure preference ranking of hypothetical scenarios (22),household travel diaries and telephone surveys have been used toobtain personal data (1,2,14). The intercept-survey technique hasbeen used to measure behavioral-attitudinal links among users of apedestrian mall (11). Using a five-point scale, respondents wereasked to rate four environmental and three spatial attributes andfour personal considerations that are important during their walk.They also considered six factors that make walking an attractiveopportunity. Respondents also rated nine factors presumed toinhibit pedestrian activity, such as long distances, weather, andlighting. Sixteen personal characteristics were considered andinclude income, employment status, age, the presence of children,and availability of a car.

Ratings of Constraints, Attributes, and Benefits

Constraints Respondents in all four neighborhoods tend toagree that long distances (3.21) and a lack of time (2.75) some-times inhibit their choice to walk (Table 4). Too many stops or destinations (2.35) and inclement weather (2.05) are seldom con-straining factors. Poor lighting (1.63), heavy traffic (1.34), cross-ing major roads (1.27) almost never prevent the participants fromchoosing to walk. These findings are interesting; although eachneighborhood is stable and pleasant, three are bounded and two areintersected by busy arterials with heavy vehicular traffic flowsduring peak periods. Although participants, who are active pedes-trians, have an awareness that spatial characteristics affect theirtendency to walk, they do not find environmental factors to bedeterminative. Active walkers appear to feel more constrained bypracticality than a sense of danger from vehicles or other people.Other reasons participants stated they frequently do not walk vary between the two neighborhood types. In the traditional neigh-borhoods, participants may not walk because they would ratherride a bike, or they drive to the neighborhood then walk around.Pedestrians in the modern communities frequently do not walkbecause they must leave the neighborhood to shop or work, or theywalk only for exercise and pleasure, not for transportation. Theseresults may indicate that participants have different concepts ofwhat is reasonable walking activity in neighborhoods with differ-ing accessibility characteristics. In addition, different designsinfluence different kinds of pedestrian travel, and being physicallyactive or able may be factors as well.

Attributes and Benefits Although evaluations of constraintsagainst walking are similar in all four neighborhoods, respondentevaluations of important attributes of pedestrian environments andimportant benefits of walking significantly vary between the twoneighborhood types. Study participants consistently placed moreimportance in the attributes available in their respective neighbor-hoods and the benefits of the activity in which they were engaged(Table 4). In the more accessible neighborhoods with mixed-useand transit service, where almost half the people on foot (49 per-cent) were walking for utilitarian purposes such as shopping andcommuting, the two most important attributes are walkable distances to shops, work, and entertainment (4.26) and access to transit (4.09). These participants also found walking providesan important opportunity to be outdoors (4.36). In the modernneighborhoods with fewer accessibility characteristics, where 57.2 percent of people on foot were walking to exercise or social-ize, walkway continuity (4.02) and trees, shade, and interestingthings to look at (3.60) are the most important environmentalattributes. These participants also indicated that the opportunity tomaintain health (4.51) is the most important benefit of walking(Table 4). Although accessibility is more valuable to people in tra-ditional neighborhoods, all respondents indicate it is importantthat personal conditions for walking be right: they must feel safe,energetic, and want to be outside. These considerations are moreimportant during their walks than the neighborhood environmen-tal and spatial attributes. Because there are many claims amongproponents of new urbanism that walking is a connective activitywith enough range to foster a sense of community, it is a surpriseto identify that respondents in traditional neighborhoods are indif-ferent towards walking as an opportunity to be around people in apublic place.


TABLE 4 Importance Ratings of Attributes and Personal Benefitsa

Individual and Household Characteristics

Significant personal characteristics inform an understanding ofstreet use and attitudes because they identify life situations thatmay constrain or facilitate pedestrians’ demand on the street envi-ronment for activity, or illustrate personal circumstances that noenvironmental design can influence (15,23). Previous tests ofwhether personal characteristics are explanatory factors in fre-quency, mode choice, and distance have produced modest, yet fas-cinating, results that are in line with this Austin study. In aprevious comparative study of neighborhood walks, age, homeownership, and household tenure of respondents were observed tonegatively correlate with the rates of walks to shop at neighbor-hood stores, but no sociodemographic factor explained why resi-dents in all four neighborhoods found strolling trips attractive (1).In this study, age and income correlate inversely with walk fre-quency because older and more affluent participants, more ofwhom live in modern neighborhoods, tend to take longer, less fre-quent recreational walk trips for the benefit of exercise (Table 5).Both male and female participants with more household depen-dents, who tended to walk in the modern neighborhoods, do so lessfrequently and for more recreational reasons. More people whoparticipated in the traditional neighborhoods are students, mem-bers of larger households of unrelated individuals without chil-dren, own fewer cars, and earn less income. This group, especiallythose with fewer cars, tends to walk more frequently for shorter

durations (Table 5). This supports the finding that greater accessi-bility positively affected the individual’s propensity to make shorttrips among women without cars (14).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Quantitative measures of walk activity and attitudes significantlyvary as they are influenced by differing transportation, land use, anddesign features. Neighborhood characteristics affect the ease ofmovement and opportunities for economic or social interaction;however, personal factors mediate the influence of environmentaldesign on pedestrian travel. Although no studies have intensivelyexamined diverse aspects of pedestrian travel behavior at the neigh-borhood scale by surveying people en route, the findings generallyare in line with previous results of other studies that have enabledan assessment of the relative importance of environmental andsociodemographic variables in affecting pedestrian travel.

The inferences that may be drawn from the intercept-survey datadescribe nothing about the percentage of people in these neighbor-hoods who choose to walk, and the share of walk purposes may bedisproportionate because the data collection was not entirely ran-dom. Nonetheless, these constraints do not undermine the conclu-sions; because the values are within the bounds of the respondents’actual experience, the data form a detailed picture about pedestri-ans, different walks they take, what they find beneficial about this


TABLE 5 Relationships Among Trip, Attitude, and Personal Characteristicsa

activity, and how these behaviors may vary due to neighborhoodenvironmental and spatial characteristics.

Walk-activity patterns significantly vary between neighborhoodswith different accessibility characteristics such as street connectiv-ity, mixed use areas, and outdoor seating. In the physically accessi-ble neighborhoods with more pedestrian-oriented features, walks arepredominantly short and frequent utilitarian trips that involve moresecondary activities, or greater walk magnitude. Activity in the lessaccessible neighborhoods with more automobile-oriented features ischaracterized by longer, less frequent recreational walks of a lowermagnitude. Walk-activity patterns are influenced by the potential forinteraction as determined by directness and number of route choices,the variety and distance of destinations, as well as outdoor seatingand the relation of buildings to streets and parking. Results supportthe conclusion that neighborhood transportation, land use, anddesign characteristics influence walk distance, duration, purpose,and number of secondary activities.

The importance of walking in general and for specific purposesalso varies with the relative levels of environmental variables. Inthe traditional neighborhoods, walkable distances, access to tran-sit, shops, and work are more important, as is the opportunity to beoutdoors. In the modern neighborhoods, walkway continuity andtrees are more important environmental attributes, as is the oppor-tunity to maintain health. As other work has shown, accessibilityaffects walk activities such as purpose, distance, and number ofsecondary activities, but is mediated through personal factors suchas income, number of household cars, number of children, andhousehold size (14).

Evidence that pedestrians more highly value the available oppor-tunities for walking suggests that latent predilections towards walk-ing shape residential preferences. Behavioral-attitudinal linksoccur in the context of long-term life choices, such as participationin the labor force or household formation, that are closely associ-ated with either pedestrian- or automobile-oriented neighborhoods.Individual long-term orientation may affect neighborhood prefer-ence because people fulfill different personal inclinations morereadily in neighborhoods with preferred environmental character-istics. Although it may appear that individuals with different lifesituations choose neighborhoods with certain streetscape or access

characteristics, and a particular intensity and type of pedestrianactivity, this hypothesis remains untested.

There are exciting discoveries to be made in pedestrian travelbehavior research that continues to integrate environmental-behavioral and travel behavior research methods. Results of thiswork identify two specific issues that merit further study of pedes-trian activity and attitudes. Because walking is influenced bysmall-scale spatial determinants and ease of movement betweendestinations, these innate differences from other transportationmodes should be emphasized in research design and measurement.Qualitative and quantitative characterization of walking should beconducted to develop innovative measures and build empiricalanalyses that lay a foundation for public policy to encouragedevelopment and design that is supportive of pedestrian travel. Asattitudes may be indirect indicators of potential behavioral change,more data collection and research among a wider range of popu-lations with different socioeconomic characteristics should be conducted. This will further understanding of the potential foraccessibility to influence latent and emergent locational and travelpreferences, the role of personal factors in affecting orientationsto walking among different populations, and the circumstancesunder which individual attitudes toward walking change.

Both research inquiries could be conducted as stand-alone re-search or during evaluations to measure the performance of invest-ments in the pedestrian environment for pedestrian transportationprogram development, project selection, and prioritization. With anin-depth measure of the structure and context of actual pedestriantravel activity, analytical tools that measure physical and personalfactors affecting pedestrian travel choices will become increasinglysensitive and accurate. Insight about these issues may be used to tar-get different populations for marketing or public policy decisions,or to enable more satisfactory classification of traveler populationsfor predictive models.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is indebted to the guidance of Susan Handy and RobertMugerauer, faculty members of the Community and Regional


11. Wang, B.-C. Pedestrian Streets: The Case Study of the Westgate Pedes-trian District. M. Arch. thesis, School of Architecture, University ofTexas, Austin, 1992.

12. Appleyard, D., M. S. Gerson, and M. Lintell. Livable Streets. Univer-sity of California Press, Berkeley, 1981.

13. Mark, A., Y. Baba. Neighborhood Environmental Satisfaction, Vic-timization, and Social Participation as Determinants of PerceivedNeighborhood Safety. Environment and BehaviorVol. 21, No. 6,November 1989, pp. 763–780.

14. Hanson, S., and M. Schwab. Accessibility and Intraurban Travel. Envi-ronment and Planning A, Vol. 19, No. 6, June 1987, pp. 735–748.

15. Winkel, G. Some Human Dimensions of Urban Design. In On Streets(S. Anderson, ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 1978, pp. 241–248.

16. Dix, M. Structuring Our Understanding of Travel Choices: The Use ofPsychometric and Social-Science Research Techniques, In New Hori-zons in Travel Behavior Research. (P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg, W. Brög, eds.), Lexington Books, Toronto, 1981, pp. 89–109.

17. U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Austin(CPH-3-70),Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1990.

18. Roth, R. Municipal Strategies to Increase Pedestrian Travel. Washing-ton State Energy Office, Olympia, Wash., 1994.

19. Untermann, R. Changing Design Standards for Streets and Roads. InPublic Streets for Public Use, (A. V. Moudon, ed.), Columbia Univer-sity Press, New York, 1987, pp. 255–260.

20. Greenan, G., A. Duaney, and E. Plater-Zyberk. Land Planning and SiteDevelopment. In The Technique of Traditional Town Planning, CintasFoundation, Miami, 1994.

21. Peterson, E. B., and J. R. Hamburg. Travel Surveys: Current Options. InTransportation Research Record 1097, TRB, National Research Coun-cil, Washington, D.C., 1986, pp. 1–3.

22. Robinson, F. O., J. L. Edwards, and C. E. Ohrn. Strategies for Increas-ing Levels of Walking and Bicycling for Utilitarian Purposes. InTransportation Research Record 743, TRB, National Research Coun-cil, Washington, D.C., 1980, pp. 38–48.

23. Kitamura, R. Life-Style and Travel Demand. In Special Report 220:A Look Ahead: Year 2020, TRB, National Research Council, Washing-ton, D.C., 1988, pp. 149–189.

Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Pedestrians.

Planning Program in the School of Architecture at the Universityof Texas at Austin. This work also has greatly benefited from com-ments of the TRB Pedestrian Committee reviewers. Partialresearch support was granted by the Mike Hogg Endowment forUrban Governance, School of Architecture, the University ofTexas at Austin. This paper is dedicated to the memory of SaraBaker Shriver.

REFERENCES

1. Handy, S. L. Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neo-TraditionalDevelopment and Its Implications for Non-Work Travel. Built Envi-ronment, Vol. 18, No. 4, Spring 1993, pp. 253–267.

2. 1000 Friends of Oregon. The Pedestrian Environment: Making theLand Use Transportation Air Quality Connection. Vol. 4 A, ParsonsBrinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., with Cambridge Systematics,Inc., and Calthorpe Associates, 1994.

3. Friedman, B., S. P. Gordon, and J. B. Peers. The Effects of NeotraditionalNeighborhood Design on Travel Characteristics. Compendium of Tech-nical Papers, ITE, District 6 Meeting, Anchorage, July 1992, pp. 195–208.

4. Zegeer, C. The National Bicycling and Walking Study: TransportationChoices for a Changing America: Final Report. FHWA-PD-94-023.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1994.

5. Hu, P. S., and J. Young. The Summary of Travel Trends, 1990 Nation-wide Personal Transportation Survey. FHWA-PL-92-024. FHWA, U.S.Department of Transportation, 1992.

6. Jacobs, J. The Peculiar Nature of Cities. In The Death and Life of GreatAmerican Cities. Vintage Books, New York, 1961, pp. 29–140.

7. Goffman, E. Behavior in Public Places: Social Organization of Gath-erings. Glencoe Collier-Macmillan, Ltd., London, 1963.

8. Rapoport, A. Human Aspects of Urban Form. Towards a Man-Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Pergamon Press,Oxford, 1977.

9. Gehl, J. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space(J. Koch, trans.).Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1987.

10. Project for Public Spaces. The Influence of Environmental Design onthe Amount and Type of Bicycling and Walking. FHWA-PD-93-037,FHWA, Department of Transportation, 1993.

Influence of Environmental Design on Pedestrian Travel Behavior in Four Austin Neighborhoods

Documents

Transcript of Influence of Environmental Design on Pedestrian Travel Behavior in Four Austin Neighborhoods