When reviewing the accessibility of an urban environment, walkability can be utilised as a tool to provide an adequate measurement. Walkability is therefore a series of visual and psychological characteristics that (ewing) helps to encourage walking behaviours within urban environments. (litman)Brawshar and litman have described in their research in the national foundation of Australia four overarching characteristics, these area Pedestrian facilities, Destinations and connectivity, safety and the Aesthetic feel of urban environments.
The first of the Walkability characteristics is Pedestrian facilities and can be defined by the psychical characteristics that the streets and footpaths have. Litman expands by saying that the orientation of …show more content…
Safety fits into two subthemes, firstly social safety which tries to provide linkage between atmospheric attributes such as lighting and the concept of “Safety in numbers” and how people react, thus it can be assumed that many people will not walk in an area that is not lit up. On the other hand safety is also concerned with the psychical features such as how well maintained a footpath is or the distance between the pedestrians and the cars, therefore implying it’s a measurement of perceived safety and actual safety.
The final characteristic of walkability is aesthetics. This area explains how the use of space and therefore the items that fill the space influence pedestrian’s behaviours and feelings about it when met with a social need such as going to the bathroom or finding an area to sit. A clear example of failure of aesthetics can be seen in the example of a man sitting on the back of a chair towards the road, therefore implying that the pedestrians would prefer to view the road than the current …show more content…
To sum up its key characteristics, these where the road that showed a particular style of badly maintained black concrete, poor Aesthetic characteristics as in many case the “urban Furniture” was placed awkwardly into the footpath, these areas also failed in terms of safety in terms of both “social safety” because these were mainly areas between attractions and therefore apart from vehicles were relatively empty dispelling any idea of “safety in numbers” , however more interestingly the psychical issue of the pavement was very bad meaning that for elderly or disabled members of that community would be ultimately at risk if they were to walk along those stretches. However, in terms of connectivity the road surprisingly did well, possibly because the newer stretches are too small to allow bus connectivity but there were bus stop littered up most of these stretches implying that people could ultimately use to them to get to other areas, however that being said the issue with the pavement and safety would dwarfs the desire of doing so. Therefor it can be concluded that if the positive characteristic of walkability can be used to create walking behaviours, these characteristics are deeply impacting walking and therefore the ease of access
The first of the Walkability characteristics is Pedestrian facilities and can be defined by the psychical characteristics that the streets and footpaths have. Litman expands by saying that the orientation of …show more content…
Safety fits into two subthemes, firstly social safety which tries to provide linkage between atmospheric attributes such as lighting and the concept of “Safety in numbers” and how people react, thus it can be assumed that many people will not walk in an area that is not lit up. On the other hand safety is also concerned with the psychical features such as how well maintained a footpath is or the distance between the pedestrians and the cars, therefore implying it’s a measurement of perceived safety and actual safety.
The final characteristic of walkability is aesthetics. This area explains how the use of space and therefore the items that fill the space influence pedestrian’s behaviours and feelings about it when met with a social need such as going to the bathroom or finding an area to sit. A clear example of failure of aesthetics can be seen in the example of a man sitting on the back of a chair towards the road, therefore implying that the pedestrians would prefer to view the road than the current …show more content…
To sum up its key characteristics, these where the road that showed a particular style of badly maintained black concrete, poor Aesthetic characteristics as in many case the “urban Furniture” was placed awkwardly into the footpath, these areas also failed in terms of safety in terms of both “social safety” because these were mainly areas between attractions and therefore apart from vehicles were relatively empty dispelling any idea of “safety in numbers” , however more interestingly the psychical issue of the pavement was very bad meaning that for elderly or disabled members of that community would be ultimately at risk if they were to walk along those stretches. However, in terms of connectivity the road surprisingly did well, possibly because the newer stretches are too small to allow bus connectivity but there were bus stop littered up most of these stretches implying that people could ultimately use to them to get to other areas, however that being said the issue with the pavement and safety would dwarfs the desire of doing so. Therefor it can be concluded that if the positive characteristic of walkability can be used to create walking behaviours, these characteristics are deeply impacting walking and therefore the ease of access