Exploring Determinants of Pedestrians' Satisfaction with Sidewalk Environments: Case Study in Korea

Journal of Urban Planning and Development

Volumn 138, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 166-172

  Wang, Weijie ^a   Li, Pingfan ^b   Wang, Wei ^c   Namgung, Moon ^d  

^a NANJING TECH UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b Traffic Management Research Institute of Public Security Ministry   (China)

^c SOUTHEAST UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d Wonkwang University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Environment; Path analysis; Perception; Satisfaction; Sidewalks

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENT; INDIRECT EFFECTS; PATH ANALYSIS; PATH MODELS; PHYSICAL COMPONENTS; SATISFACTION; SIDEWALKS; URBAN PLANNERS;

PAVEMENTS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SENSORY PERCEPTION; SURVEYS;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

PATH ANALYSIS; PEDESTRIAN; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGY; URBAN AREA;

KOREA;

EID: 84862166096     PISSN: 07339488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000105     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Akbar K.F. Hale W.H. G. Headley A.D. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape Urban Plann. 2003, 63(3):139-144. LUPLEZ, 0169-2046, 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00185-8.
2. Amerigo M. psychological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Residential environments: Choice, satisfaction, and behavior 2002, 81-99. J. I. Aragones, G. Francescato, T. Garling, Bergin and Garvey Publishers, Westport, CT.
3. Amerigo M. Aragones J.I. theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17(1):47-57. JEPSEO, 0272-4944, 10.1006/jevp.1996.0038.
4. Amistad F. Assessment of the pedestrianization policies in Vigan City: UNESCO World Heritage Site. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2010, 136(1):11-22. JUPDDM, 0733-9488, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2010)136:1(11).
5. Balram S. Dragicevic S. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape Urban plann 2005, 71(2-4):147-162. LUPLEZ, 0169-2046, 10.1016/S0169-2046(04)00052-0.
6. Bonaiuto M. Fornara F. Bonnes M. Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in urban environments: confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape Urban Plann. 2003, 65(1-2):41-52. LUPLEZ, 0169-2046, 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00236-0.
7. Browne M.W. Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models 1993, 136-161. K. A. Bollen, J. S. Long, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
8. Byrne B.M. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
9. Clifton K.J. Smith A.D. L. Rodriguez D. The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landscape Urban Plann. 2007, 80(1-2):95-100. LUPLEZ, 0169-2046, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.008.
10. Echelberger H.E. The semantic differential in landscape research. Proc., Our National Landscape: Conf. on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource 1979, 524-531. USDA, Washington, DC.
11. Ergin A. Karaesmen E. Micallef A. Williams A.T. new methodology for evaluating coastal scenery: Fuzzy logic systems. Area 2004, 36(4):367-386. AREAB6, 10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00238.x.
12. Evans-Cowley J. Sidewalk planning and policies in small cities. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2006, 132(2):71-75. JUPDDM, 0733-9488, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006)132:2(71).
13. Francescato G. Residential satisfaction research: The case for and against. Residential environments: Choice, satisfaction, and behavior 2002, 15-34. G. Aragones, G. Francescato, T. Garling, Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT.
14. Frank L.D. Engelke P.O. The built environment and human activity patterns: Exploring the impacts of urban form on public health. J. Plann. Lit. 2001, 16(2):202-218. 0885-4122, 10.1177/08854120122093339.
15. Fujiyama T. Childs C. Boampong D. Tyler N. Investigation of lighting levels for pedestrians: Some questions about lighting levels of current lighting standards. 6th Int. Conf. on Walking in the 21st Century 2005, Walk21, Cheltenham, UK.
16. Gold M.S. Bentler P.M. Treatments of missing data: Monte Carlo comparison of RBHDI, iterative stochastic regression imputation, and expectation-maximization. Struct. Equ. Model. 2000, 7(3):319-355. 1070-5511, 10.1207/S15328007SEM0703_1.
17. Graham J.W. Hofer S.M. Multiple imputation in multivariate research. Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues, applied approaches, and specific examples 2000, 201-218. T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, and J. Baumert, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
18. Handy S.L. Boarnet M.G. Ewing R. Killingworth R.E. How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 23(2):64-73. AJPMEA, 0749-3797, 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0.
19. Hochberg J. Representative sampling and the purposes of research: Pictures of the world and the world of pictures. The Psychology of Egon Brunswik 1966, 361-381. K. Hammond, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
20. Hoyle R.H. The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications 1995, 1-15. R. H. Hoyle, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
21. Hu L. Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6(1):1-55. 1070-5511, 10.1080/10705519909540118.
22. Hur M. Factors that influence resident's satisfaction with neighborhood. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40(5):619-635. EVBHAF, 0013-9165, 10.1177/0013916507307483.
23. Kamičaitytė-Virbašienth J. Janušaitis R. Some methodical aspects of landscape visual quality preferences analysis. Environ. Res. Eng. Manage. 2004, 3(29):51-60. 1392-1649.
24. Kaplan R. Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. J. Archit. Plann. Res. 1985, 2(2):115-127. JAPRER, 0738-0895.
25. Kim S. Choi J. Kim Y. Determining the sidewalk pavement width by using pedestrian discomfort levels and movement characteristics. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2011, 15(5):883-889. 1226-7988, 10.1007/s12205-011-1173-1.
26. Kinoshita Y. Cooper E.W. Hoshino Y. Kamei K. townscape evaluation system based on Kansei and colour harmony models. Proc., IEEE Int. Conf. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 2004, 1:327-332. IEEE, New York.
27. Kline R.B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling 2005, 2nd Ed., Guilford, New York.
28. Lansing J.B. Marans R.W. Planner's notebook: Evaluation of neighborhood quality. J. Am. Inst. Planners 1969, 35(3):195-199. 0002-8991.
29. Lee B.J. Jang T.Y. Wang W. Namgung M. Design criteria for an urban sidewalk landscape considering emotional perception. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2009, 135(4):133-140. JUPDDM, 0733-9488, 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000013.
30. Li S.P. Will B.F. fuzzy logic system for visual evaluation. Environ. Plann. 2005, 32(2):293-304. EPSBD9, 10.1068/b31155.
31. Lim E.M. Honjo T. Umeki K. The validity of VRML images as stimulus for landscape assessment. Landscape Urban Plann. 2006, 77(1-2):80-93. LUPLEZ, 0169-2046, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.01.007.
32. Litman T.A. Economic value of walkability. 2003, 3-11. 10.3141/1828-01, Transportation Research Record 1828, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
33. Lund H. Pedestrian environments and sense of community. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 2002, 21(3):301-312. 0739-456X, 10.1177/0739456X0202100307.
34. MacCallum R.C. Austin J.T. Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2000, 51(1):201-226. ARPSAC, 0066-4308, 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201.
35. Marans R.W. Perceived quality of residential environments: Some methodological issues. Perceiving environmental quality: Research and applications 1976, 123-147. K. H. Craik, E. H. Zube, Plenum, New York.
36. McDonald R.P. Ho M.H. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7(1):64-82. 1082-989X, 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64.
37. McHarg I. Design with nature, 1969, Natural History, New York.
38. Nasar J.L. Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes. Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications 1988, 275-289. J. L. Nasar, Cambridge University Press, New York.
39. Nasar J.L. The evaluative image of the city 1997, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
40. Nasar J.L. Hong X. Visual preferences in urban signscapes. Environ. Behav. 1999, 31(5):671-691. EVBHAF, 0013-9165, 10.1177/00139169921972290.
41. Osgood C.E. The nature and measurement of meaning. Semantic differential technique: source book 1969, 3-41. C. E. Osgood, J. G. Snider, Aldine, Chicago.
42. Osgood C.E. Suci G.J. Tannenbaum P.H. The measurement of meaning 1957, and University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
43. Øvstedal L. Ryeng E.O. 2004, and PROMPT Pedestrian Comfort Synthesis Rep., SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway.
44. Rahaman K.R. Lourenço J.M. Viegas J.M. Perceptions of pedestrians and shopkeepers in European medium-sized cities: study of Guimarães, Portugal. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2011, 138(1). JUPDDM, 0733-9488, 26-34.
45. Raman B. Naderi J.R. Computer based pedestrian landscape design using decision tree templates. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2006, 20(1):23-30. 1474-0346, 10.1016/j.aei.2005.08.002.
46. Randall A.T. Baetz W.B. Evaluating pedestrian connectivity for suburban sustainability. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2001, 127(1):1-15. JUPDDM, 0733-9488, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2001)127:1(1).
47. Schroeder H.W. Cannon W.N. Visual quality of residential streets: Both street and yard trees make difference. J. Arboric. 1987, 13(10):236-239. JOARDF, 0278-5226.
48. Shibata T. Kato T. Modeling of subjective interpretation for street landscape image. Progress in artificial intelligence, LNCS 1460 1998, 501-510. J. Neves, M. F. Santos, J. M. Machado, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany.
49. Southworth M. Designing the walkable city. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2005, 131(4):246-257. JUPDDM, 0733-9488, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)131:4(246).
50. Todorova A. Asakawa S. Aikoh T. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape Urban Plann. 2004, 69(4):403-419. LUPLEZ, 0169-2046, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.11.001.
51. Tsumita H. Sekido Y. Hamamoto S.A. Correlation analysis of an atmosphere and indication element of street space by psychological quantity distribution figure: Study of Kehai in urban street spaces (Part 2). J. Archit. Plann. Res. 2006, 607:41-48. JAPRER, 0738-0895, (in Japanese).
52. Wei T.Y. corrplot: Visualization of correlation matrix. 2010, (Oct. 15, 2010).
53. Williams K. Exploring resident preferences for street trees in Melbourne, Australia. J. Arboric. 2002, 28(4):161-169. JOARDF, 0278-5226.
54. Wolf K.L. Assessing public response to freeway roadsides: Urban forestry and context sensitive solutions. Proc. 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board 2006, Paper 06-1586, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
55. Zube E.H. Pitt D.G. Anderson T.W. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources 1975, 151-167. E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, J. G. Fabos, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.