Cosmina Andreea Manea Promoting walkability as a form of ... · 1. Economics 1970 –1/10 of income on transportation 2015 –1/5 of income on transportation (more than on housing)

Walkability as a Form of Sustainable Transport Mode.

Case study: Bucharest Central AreaCosmina - Andreea MANEA

Master Student, Faculty of Geography, University of BucharestCICADIT Research Center, University of Bucharest

Students’ Scientific Circle of Urban and Rural Planning

6-7 December 2018, Bucharest

Definition• Walkability = the degree to which an area within walking distance of a

property encourages walking trips from the property to other destinations.(Pivo and Fsher, 2011, p. 186)

• Walkability = a quantitative and qualitative measurement of how inviting orun-inviting an area is to pedestrians. (Jane’s Walk, 2013)

• Walkable city = a city in which the car is an optional instrument of freedom,rather than a prosthetic device. (Jeff Speck, 2015)

• Walkability is the foundation of any type of transportation, as all trips requirewalking at some point. (European Commission)

Fig. 1. People walking on a crowded streetSource: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/8/4/want-community-build-walkability

2

Objectives

• Assessing the walkability level of Bucharest central areas;• Identifying the main factors that influence the walkability score;• Identifying the benefits of walkability;• Suggesting possible solutions in order to increase the walkability score.

3Fig. 2. Bucharest old city center – Lipscani street

Source: http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20130712-bucharests-new-old-city

1. Economics1970 – 1/10 of income on transportation2015 – 1/5 of income on transportation (more than on housing)

BUT 2 times more roads in 2015 than in 1970.

Urban marketing – 64% of millennials decide first WHERE they want to live, then they MOVE there, then they search for the JOB.

Why we need walkability?

4Source: http://www.economica.net/cat-cheltuiesc-romanii-pe-utilitati_102949.html

Equivalent of 9.06% of income (2014)

Table 1. Spending categories of household income in 2012 and 2014

2. Social: Health

1970 – 1 in 10 people obese2015 – 1 in 3 people obese (40% of men, 50% of women)

WHY? Environmentally induced inactivity.

Asthma

Cancer

Deaths

5

Fig. 3. Percentage of obese women by age group in Romania

Source: World Obesity

Fig. 4. Cancer risk factorsSource: https://www.prostemcell.ro/37-noutati-medicale/5517-studii-

clinice.html?lang=ro&start=15

3. Environmental

CO2 emissions paradox – the denser the city the less carbon footprintA walkable city saves in a week as much as changing all traditional lightbulbs in ecological ones saves in a year.

6Fig. 5. Annual carbon footprint by household in Boswash Megalopolis

Source: https://decolonialatlas.wordpress.com/2016/10/08/us-household-carbon-footprint/

Study area

A CB

Fig. 6. Areas covered by present study: A. Dorobanţi; B. Iancului; C. Grădina IcoaneiSource: Satellite image from Google Maps, edited in ArcGis

7

Methodology24 indicators;3 levels/scales; Data collected: 28 October – 3 November;Hour intervals: 9:00-12:00, 18:00-20:00.

24 indicators;3 levels/scales; Data collected: 28 October – 3 November;Hour intervals: 9:00-12:00, 18:00-20:00.

8

City

Neighborhood

Street

• Visually active frontage• Uses• Clean• Garbage bins• Cars/hour• Bus• Art and entertainment• Number of bands• Speed bumps

• Street level activity• Trees• Evening open• Street vendors• Color contrast• Quiet• Buildings height

• Walkway• Crosswalks• Signal at intersection• Seating• Shade and shelter• Paveway obstructions• Graffiti• Paveway width

Fig. 7. Level of intervention and walkability indicators usedSource: own data created based on biographical research

Walk score – matrix approach

Table 2. Walkability indicators and how they influence each other and the final walkability score

Source: bibliographical research, own data analysis and interpretation

Walkway = complete, continuous, safe, accessible Crosswalks

Visually active frontage

Street level activity Trees Seating Uses

Shade and shelter

Paveway obstructions Clean

Cars/hour Bus

Evening open

Street vendors

Art and entertainment

Colour contrast Quiet Graffiti

No. bands Width Height

Speed bumps

Signal at intersection

Garbage bins

Indicators influenced

% of walkscore

Walkway = complete, continuous, safe, accessible 1 1%Crosswalks 1 2%Visually active frontage 1 2%Street level activity 3 3%Trees 2 3%Seating 0 1%Uses 23 15%Shade and shelter 1 2%Paveway obstructions 1 2%Clean 0 1%Cars/hour 11 10%Bus 10 10%Evening open 9 9%Street vendors 3 3%Art and entertainment 7 5%Colour contrast 2 3%Quiet 0 1%Graffiti 1 2%No bands 8 9%Paveway width 5 5%Height 4 5%Speed bumps 0 1%Signal at intersection 2 3%Garbage bins 1 2%Indicators that influence it 18 6 7 6 6 1 1 4 5 5 2 2 1 2 1 3 6 3 2 4 1 4 4 2

9

Street




Shade and shelter


Cars/hour Bus

Evening open

Street vendors


Colour contrast Quiet Graffiti No bands Width Height

Speed bumps


Garbage bins

Arthur Verona 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

General Eremia Grigorescu 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Arthur Verona 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 0.5 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

George Enescu 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 1

Al. D. Xeonopol 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Jean Louis Calderon 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1 1

Al. D. Xeonopol 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

C. A. Rosetti 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1 1

Piaţa Lahovari 0 0 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0.5 0 0.75 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 1 1

Jules Michelet 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 1 1 0 1

Magheru 1 1 1 0.5 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 1 1

Piaţa Gh. Cantacuzino 0.5 0 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1

Calea Dorobanţi (Romană) 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.75 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 1

I. L. Caragiale 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0.75 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1

Piaţa Romană 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 1

Lascăr Catargiu 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 1

Dumbrava Roşie 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 1

Pitar Moş 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

Dionisie Lupu 0.5 1 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1

Alee 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 0.5 0 0 1

Alee 7 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 0.5 0 0 1

Intrarea Armaşului 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 0

Intrarea Mareşal Iosif Pilsudski 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 1

Intrarea Sfatului 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.75 1 0 0 0 0 0

Cristofor Columb 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.75 1 1 0 0 0 0

Intrarea Dacilor 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.75 1 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4. Score for each analyzed indicator for the Grădina Icoanei area

Source: own data collected on field, analyzed using Microsoft Excel

10

Street




Shade and shelter


Cars/hour Bus

Evening open

Street vendors



Speed bumps


Garbage bins

Finlanda 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 0.5 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0.75 1 1 1 0 1 0

Brazilia 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.75 1 1 0 0 0 1

Alee 2 1 0 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.75 1 1 0.5 1 0 1

Hatmanul Arbore 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1

Bulevardul Iancu de Hunedoara 1 1 1 0.5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 0.5 1 1 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 1

Calea Dorobanţi 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 1 0.75 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 1

Stockholm 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 1

Alee 5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 1

Axinte Uricariul 1 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 1 0 0.5 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 0

Stockholm 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0

Amman 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

Căderea Bastiliei 0.5 1 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1

Ocolire Amman 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.5 0 0 1

Alee 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.75 1 1 0.5 1 0 1

Alee 4 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 1 0.5 0 0 1

Albac 1 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

Alee 1 1 0 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.75 1 1 0.5 1 0 1

Axinte Uricariu 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.75 1 1 0.5 0 0 1

Naum Rânceanu 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1

Washington Residence 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.75 1 0 1 0 0 0

Finalnda 2 0.5 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.75 1 0.5 1 0 0 0

Chile 1 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Finlanda 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.75 1 0.5 1 0 0 0

Lacul Sărat 1 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.5 0 0 1

Episcop Timuş 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.75 1 1 1 0 0 1

Ocolire Brazilia 1 0 0.5 1 1 0 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 0.5 0 0 0 0

Madrid 1 0 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.75 1 0.5 0 0 0 0

Table 5. Score for each analyzed indicator for the Dorobanţi area


11

Street




Shade and shelter


Cars/hour Bus

Evening open

Street vendors



Speed bumps


Garbage bins

Iancu Cavaler de Flondor 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 1 0 1 1

Pache Protopopescu 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.75 0.5 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.5 0 1 1

Traian 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1

Vasile Vasilievici Stroescu 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 1 0 0 0

Ferdinand I 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.5 0 0.75 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 1

Căpitan Ion Vasilescu 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Lirei 1 0 1 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Pictor Ion Andreescu 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.75 1 0 1 0 0 0

Horei 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

Table 6. Score for each analyzed indicator for the Iancului area


12

Street Score Street Score Street ScoreArthur Verona 0.795 Finlanda 0.675 Iancu Cavaler de Flondor 0.735

General Eremia Grigorescu 0.745 Brazilia 0.67 Pache Protopopescu 0.72

Arthur Verona 1 0.715 Alee 2 0.665 Traian 0.705

George Enescu 0.69 Hatmanul Arbore 0.655 Vasile Vasilievici Stroescu 0.665

Al. D. Xeonopol 0.675 Bulevardul Iancu de Hunedoara 0.65 Ferdinand I 0.59

Jean Louis Calderon 0.655 Calea Dorobanţi 0.645 Căpitan Ion Vasilescu 0.59

Al. D. Xeonopol 1 0.635 Stockholm 0.645 Lirei 0.525

C. A. Rosetti 0.635 Alee 5 0.64 Pictor Ion Andreescu 0.465

Piaţa Lahovari 0.61 Axinte Uricariul 0.63 Horei 0.435

Jules Michelet 0.6 Stockholm 1 0.62 TOTAL 0.60Magheru 0.595 Amman 0.615

Piaţa Gh. Cantacuzino 0.585 Căderea Bastiliei 0.61

Calea Dorobanţi (Romană) 0.575 Ocolire Amman 0.605

I. L. Caragiale 0.555 Alee 3 0.6

Piaţa Romană 0.555 Alee 4 0.6

Lascăr Catargiu 0.555 Albac 0.6

Dumbrava Roşie 0.535 Alee 1 0.59

Pitar Moş 0.515 Axinte Uricariu 0.57

Dionisie Lupu 0.485 Naum Rânceanu 0.545

Alee 6 0.425 Washington Residence 0.545

Alee 7 0.425 Finalnda 2 0.535

Intrarea Armaşului 0.415 Chile 0.5

Intrarea Mareşal Iosif Pilsudski 0.41 Finlanda 1 0.48

Intrarea Sfatului 0.315 Lacul Sărat 0.48

Cristofor Columb 0.315 Episcop Timuş 0.475

Intrarea Dacilor 0.29 Ocolire Brazilia 0.46

TOTAL 0.55 Madrid 0.43

TOTAL 0.59

ResultsTable 3. Walkability score for the analyzed areas A. Grădina Icoanei B. Dorobanţi C. Iancului

A B C

Source: own data collected on field 13

AB

C

Fig. 8. Walkability score: A. Grădina Icoanei; B. Iancului; C. DorobanţiSource: own data collected on field, edited in ArcGis

14

15

CBA

CBA

Fig. 10. Streets with lowest walkability score in each area

Source: own data

A. Intrarea DacilorB. MadridC. Horei

Fig. 9. Streets with highest walkability score in each area

Source: own data

A. Arthur VeronaB. FinlandaC. Iancu Cavaler de

Flondor

Limitations• Small analyzed area;• No sociological analysis regarding how many people choose to walk and the reasons why

they do that;• Limited number of indicators;• Street level score for every indicator;• Same indicators can be both a positive or a negative factor for walkability;• Some indicators depend on the moment of day the analysis is made;• On some streets one indicator can have in reality a much greater impact than it has

generally on other streets, according to the formula – this change in impact is notreflected by the final score.

16

Preliminary results:Mainly short walks to bus station or small

shop; Just walking only in central area;

Most people would walk more if the streets were less crowded and there would be more

vegetation and sitting places.

Solutions – General Theory of Walkability

1. A proper reason to walk

19th century – the house away from the mills A. Duany & E. Plater Zyberg founded the new urbanism movement

2 ways to build:- Everything together (A);- Euclidean zoning (B).

17Fig. 11. Building approaches from A. Amman street, B. Lirei streetSource: own data

A B

2. Safety

Trees (A)Number of lanes (B)Block size (C)City form (D)Oversized streets (E)

18

ED

CBA

Fig. 12. Negative examples of safety street level element

Source: own data

A. Pictor Ion AndreescuB. MagheruC. Hatmanul ArboreD. George EnescuE. Piaţa Romană

3. Comfortable

Edges (B)Height to width ratio (A, D)No “missing teeth” (C)Clean (E)

19

EDC

BA

Fig. 13. Street level aspects relating the

“comfortable” elementSource: own data

A. LireiB. Jean Louis CalderonC. AlbacD. Axinte UricariuE. Chile

4. Interesting walk

Signs of humanityArt and entertainment

20

Fig. 14. Street level aspects relating the “interesting walk” element

Source: own data

A. Iancu de HunedoaraB. Jules MichletC. MagheruD. Axinte UricariuE. DorobanţiF. General Erimia GrigorescuG. StockholmH. Pitar MoşI. Arthur Verona

A B C

D E F

G H I

6. Enjoyable

6. Enjoyable

5. Comfortable

5. Comfortable

4. Convenient4. Convenient

3. Safe3. Safe

2. Accessible2. Accessible

1. Passable1. Passable

Final Goal

Fig. 15. Pyramid of hierarchy of needs in relation to walkabilitySource: Quality of Life in European Cities report, 2015, European Commission 21

How to implement those solutions?

• 3 levels of intervention proposal

LEVEL METHOD TYPE OF INTERVENTION

Citywide Walkability comparison (PUG) Urban planning, zoning, growth control policies, subdivision planning

Neighborhood Walkability assessment (PUZ) Urban planning, zoning, building regulations, street design

Street Walkability design check-list (PUD) Street design, urban design

Table 7. Method and type of intervention proposed for every level

Source: bibliographical research, own data analysis and interpretation

22

BibliographyAziz, H.A., Park, B.H., Morton, A., Stewart, R.N., Hilliard, M. and Maness, M., 2018. A highresolution agent-based model to support walk-bicycle infrastructure investment decisions: A case studywith New York City. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 86, pp.280-299.

Barros, A.P., Martínez, L.M. and Viegas, J.M., 2017. How urban form promotes walkability?.Transportation research procedia, 27, pp.133-140.

Bereitschaft, B., 2018. Exploring perceptions of creativity and walkability in Omaha, NE. City, Cultureand Society.

Bödeker, M., Finne, E., Kerr, J. and Bucksch, J., 2018. Active travel despite motorcar access. A city-wide, GIS-based multilevel study on neighborhood walkability and active travel in Germany. Journal ofTransport & Health.

Cavoli, C., 2017, Past, Present and Future Mobility challenges and opportunities in Bucharest,Bucharest

European Commission, 2016, Quality of life in European Cities in 2015, Luxembourg

Ferrer, S. and Ruiz, T., 2018. The impact of the built environment on the decision to walk for shorttrips: evidence from two Spanish cities. Transport policy, 67, pp.111-120.

Habibian, M. and Hosseinzadeh, A., 2018. Walkability index across trip purposes. Sustainable Citiesand Society, 42, pp.216-225.

Hall, C.M. and Ram, Y., 2018. Walk score® and its potential contribution to the study of activetransport and walkability: A critical and systematic review. Transportation Research Part D: Transportand Environment.

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2018, Pedestrians first – Tools for a walkable city,New York

Jung, H., Lee, S.Y., Kim, H.S. and Lee, J.S., 2017. Does improving the physical street environmentcreate satisfactory and active streets? Evidence from Seoul’s Design Street Project. Transportationresearch part D: transport and environment, 50, pp.269-279.

Knight, J., Weaver, R. and Jones, P., 2018. Walkable and resurgent for whom? The uneven geographiesof walkability in Buffalo, NY. Applied Geography, 92, pp.1-11.

Koohsari, M.J., Sugiyama, T., Hanibuchi, T., Shibata, A., Ishii, K., Liao, Y. and Oka, K., 2018. Validityof Walk Score® as a measure of neighborhood walkability in Japan. Preventive medicine reports, 9,pp.114-117.

Lai, Y. and Kontokosta, C.E., 2018. Quantifying place: Analyzing the drivers of pedestrian activity indense urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, pp.166-178.

Lee, E. and Dean, J., 2018. Perceptions of walkability and determinants of walking behaviour amongurban seniors in Toronto, Canada. Journal of Transport & Health.

Minh, N.Q., 2016. Application of “Car-Free City” and “City of Short Walks” to living quarters in Hanoitowards sustainable mobility and logistics. Procedia engineering, 142, pp.284-291.

Moniruzzaman, M. and Páez, A., 2016. An investigation of the attributes of walkable environmentsfrom the perspective of seniors in Montreal. Journal of transport geography, 51, pp.85-96.

Nilles, M. and Kaparias, I., 2018. Investigating the relation of highway design standards with network-level walkability: The case study of Luxembourg. International Journal of Transportation Science andTechnology.

Primăria Municipiului Bucureşti, 2017, Masterplanul de transport urban Bucureşti, Bucureşti

Rafiemanzelat, R., Emadi, M.I. and Kamali, A.J., 2017. City sustainability: the influence of walkabilityon built environments. Transportation research procedia, 24, pp.97-104.

Sdoukopoulos, A., Verani, E., Nikolaidou, A., Gavanas, N., Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M., Mikiki, F.,Mademli, E. and Pallas, C., 2017. Development and implementation of walkability audits in Greekmedium-sized cities: the case of the Serres’ city centre. Transportation research procedia, 24, pp.337-344.

Singh, R., 2016. Factors affecting walkability of neighborhoods. Procedia-Social and BehavioralSciences, 216, pp.643-654.

Speck, J., 2017, 4 ways to make a city more walkable, TedTalks, https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_4_ways_to_make_a_city_more_walkable?language=en

Speck, J., 2013, The walkable city, TedTaks, https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_the_walkable_city?language=en

Yin, L., 2017. Street level urban design qualities for walkability: Combining 2D and 3D GIS measures.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 64, pp.288-296.

23

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

Questions and Discussion

Source: http://walk21vienna.com/conference-program/walkshops/walkshop-15/

24

Documents

Cosmina Andreea Manea Promoting walkability as a form of ... · 1. Economics 1970 –1/10 of income on transportation 2015 –1/5 of income on transportation (more than on housing)