SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 38
Download to read offline
Kevin Manaugh
PhD Candidate McGill School of Urban Planning


Pro Walk/Pro Bike Conference September 11, 2012


                   SCHOOL OF URBAN PLANNING
Context
   Why do people walk?
     Quality of walking environment
     Convenience

     Necessity

     Environmental Awareness

     Cultural or family values

     Financial Constraints

     Enjoyment

     Exercise

     Social connections
Walkability/Propensity to Walk
   A vast literature explores walkability from a built
    environment standpoint
   A vast literature also explores propensity to walk
    from a behavioural/psychological perspective
   However, attempts to integrate these strands are less
    common
   Many research and policy contexts ignore issues of
    motivation and satisfaction
Big Questions

   Built form versus personal, household, neighbourhood,
    cultural characteristics in walking decisions

   Does satisfaction with walking trips vary by personal
    motivations? In addition to distance, slope, safety etc.
1) Context/Research Questions

   How well do existing walkability indices explain the
    variance in the choice to walk?
   Does this vary by trip purpose and socio-
    demographic factors?
   What are the social equity implications of this?
100



                              90



                              80
Percentage of walking trips




                              70



                              60



                              50



                              40



                              30



                              20



                              10



                               0
                                    1   2   3       4      5      6     7        8   9   10

                                                Quality of Walking Environment
100



                              90



                              80
Percentage of walking trips




                              70



                              60



                              50



                              40



                              30



                              20



                              10



                               0
                                    1   2   3       4      5      6     7        8   9   10

                                                Quality of Walking Environment
Percentage of shopping trips by walking by decile
60




50




40




                                                                     Walkscore
30                                                                   WI (800 m)
                                                                     Walk Oppotunities
                                                                     Pedshed (800m)

20




10




0
     1   2   3        4      5      6      7      8      9     10
Percentage of shopping trips by walking by decile
60




                                                                              581 trips
50
                                                                              271 by foot



40




                                                                                  Walkscore
30                                                                                WI (800 m)
                                                                                  Walk Oppotunities
                                                                                  Pedshed (800m)

20

         468 trips
         24 by foot
10




0
     1        2       3        4      5      6      7      8      9     10
Percentage of School trips by walking by decile
40




35




30




25


                                                                    Walkscore
20                                                                  WI (800 m)
                                                                    Walk Oppotunities
                                                                    Pedshed (800m)
15




10




5




0
     1   2   3      4      5       6      7      8      9      10
Percentage of School trips by walking by decile
40




35
                                                                         253 out of
                                                                         917 trips
30




25


                                                                               Walkscore
20
     105 out of                                                                WI (800 m)
     1063 trips                                                                Walk Oppotunities
                                                                               Pedshed (800m)
15




10




5




0
     1     2      3      4      5       6      7      8      9      10
Sensitivity Analysis

Probabilities calculated at the mean* by walkscore deciles
                       No car low    Retired Wealthy Middle age no Middle Class Large       Young Wealthy
                         income                no kids      Kids                Families   Families
First Decile              72.1%       36.1%    12.6%       21.4%     30.6%       29.7%      18.5%   3.3%
Fifth Decile              74.8%       65.2%    38.4%       43.6%     43.6%       49.7%      35.8% 16.2%
Tenth Decile              78.0%       89.4%    79.5%       74.1%     61.0%       74.1%      63.1% 63.2%
       *36 year old female making a 734 meter (average length) shopping trip
Urban Form                    Content
Streets                       Destinations
Intersections                 Parks
Sidewalks                     Transit
Trails                        Schools



                Resident
                Needs
                Desires
                Expectation
                Culture
Urban Form        Content
Streets           Destinations
Intersections     Parks
Sidewalks         Transit
Trails            Schools



            Resident
            Needs
            Desires
            Expectation
            Culture
Urban Form         Content
Streets            Destinations
Intersections      Parks
Sidewalks          Transit
Trails             Schools
             Resident
           Needs
           Desires                Walkability
           Expectation
           Culture
Conclusions (Part 1)
   Equity Issues
•   People with limited choices are walking in
    neighborhoods that are not ideal for walking
•   Generalized indices (and performance measures)
    might miss this distinction
•   People walking does not necessarily equal good
    walking environment
•   Greater observed response among wealthy
    households should not imply directed policy
    response
Lessons Learned
   Walkability is not “one size fits all” but depends on:
     TripPurpose
     Socio-economic factors

     Gender

     Age

   Can perhaps best be described as a “match”
    between built form factors and needs, preferences,
    and desires of local residents.
   What next?
Part 2

Does Distance Matter? Exploring the links
between motivations and satisfaction in
walking trips
Context

   How do values and motivations relate to satisfaction
    with walking trips?
   Much of travel behaviour research focuses on built
    environment and proximity/accessibility issues
   Motivations to engage in active transportation and
    derived satisfaction are often ignored
Context

   Most utility-maximization frameworks assume that
    travel time and distance are elements of a trip to
    be minimized
   However, recent research has highlighted the fact
    that this may not always be the case
   For example, do ‘environmentalists’ or ‘exercise
    junkies’ show a different response to trip
    characteristics?
Data
   Survey
     Description  of commute
     Motivations for using chosen mode

     Residential choice factors

     Trip satisfaction

   GIS
     Slope

     Other  walkability variables
     Trip Distance
Methodology

   Correlations among values, motivations, satisfaction
    levels, and trip characteristics

   Clustering of respondents by motivations to engage
    in active transportation
Initial Findings

   No significant relationship between satisfaction and
    distance travelled or slope of path

   Clustering of respondents by (self-reported)
    motivation for walking
Cluster membership

                                                               Elevation
                                                                change                  Very                       Min (m)   Max (m)
 Cluster                                        Count             (m)               satisfied (%)   Distance (m)
 Active cost Mimimizers                          134            61.0**               19.4%****       2034.2*       335.5     6068.6
 Close Cost Mimimizers                            88             29.7                25.0%****         958.3       337.0     2354.3
 Active Environmentalists                         53            57.0**               52.8%***        1801.3*       327.0     4020.9
 Convenience                                     224             24.6                  35.7%           846.3       194.5     3267.4
 Close and exercise                              106             30.9                40.6%***          963.7        26.5     2862.5
 Convenience and exercise                         66            51.7**               39.4%***        1675.6*       431.6     3561.6
     *Statistically significant (ANOVA) F(5,671) = 61.18, p < .01(in relation to non-asterisks)
     ** (ANOVA) F(5,671) = 37.926, p < .01(in relation to non-asterisks)
     ***Chi-square (5, N = 671) = 27.58, p = .0001, higher than expected value
     **** Chi-square (5, N = 671) = 27.58, p = .0001, lower than expected value
100



               90



               80



               70



               60
Satisfaction




               50



               40



               30



               20



               10



                0
                     1   2   3   4   5      6   7   8   9   10

                                     Distance
100



               90



               80



               70



               60
Satisfaction




               50



               40



               30



               20



               10



                0
                     1   2   3   4   5      6   7   8   9   10

                                     Distance
70%




                         60%




                         50%
Percent Very Satisfied




                         40%




                         30%




                         20%




                         10%




                         0%
                               1   2            3             4   5
                                       Quintile of Distance
70%
                                                              Expon. (Close Cost Mimizers)

                                                              Expon. (Convience)
                         60%
                                                              Expon. (Convinience and
                                                              exercise)

                         50%
Percent Very Satisfied




                         40%




                         30%




                         20%




                         10%




                         0%
                               1   2            3                 4                          5
                                       Quintile of Distance
70%

                                                              Expon. (Active cost Mimizers)

                         60%
                                                              Expon. (Close and exercise)


                         50%
Percent Very Satisfied




                         40%




                         30%




                         20%




                         10%




                         0%
                               1   2            3                 4                           5
                                       Quintile of Distance
70%



                                                              Expon. (Active Environmentalists)
                         60%




                         50%
Percent Very Satisfied




                         40%




                         30%




                         20%




                         10%




                         0%
                               1   2            3                   4                             5
                                       Quintile of Distance
70%
                                                              Expon. (Active cost Mimizers)
                                                              Expon. (Close Cost Mimizers)
                                                              Expon. (Active Environmentalists)
                                                              Expon. (Convience)
                         60%
                                                              Expon. (Close and exercise)
                                                              Expon. (Convinience and exercise)



                         50%
Percent Very Satisfied




                         40%




                         30%




                         20%




                         10%




                         0%
                               1   2            3                4                                5
                                       Quintile of Distance
70%
                                                                           Expon. (Active cost Mimizers)
                                                                           Expon. (Close Cost Mimizers)
                                                                           Expon. (Active Environmentalists)
                                                                           Expon. (Convience)
                         60%
                                                                           Expon. (Close and exercise)
                                                                           Expon. (Convinience and exercise)



                         50%



                                   507 metres                                             2817 metres
Percent Very Satisfied




                         40%




                         30%




                         20%




                         10%




                         0%
                               1                2            3                4                                5
                                                    Quintile of Distance
Conclusions
   People walk for a variety of reasons and
    motivations (many of which have nothing to do with
    built environment factors)
   People's satisfaction with walking is correlated with
    these motivations
   Satisfaction rates are generally high
Conclusions

   Some people, particularly those with more
    environmental awareness and propensity to
    exercise, are more satisfied with longer distance
    and greater slope
Conclusions

   This might have important implications about how
    walking behavior is understood, predicted, and
    modeled, particularly in terms of further expanding
    utility maximization models to include preferences
Conclusions

   Policy implications: Is the goal to:
     Increase mode share? (GHG and CC)
     Increase total walking? (Population Health)

     Improve satisfaction of those already walking? (Equity)
Conclusions

   What does this all mean?
     What   are the most important, effective, efficient levers
      to increase walk/bike mode share?
     Policies, social marketing, infrastructure?
Kevin Manaugh     kevin.manaugh@mail.mcgill.ca




                SCHOOL OF URBAN PLANNING

More Related Content

More from Project for Public Spaces & National Center for Biking and Walking

More from Project for Public Spaces & National Center for Biking and Walking (20)

A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities
A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for CitiesA Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities
A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities
 
Level of Service F for Grade A Streets
Level of Service F for Grade A StreetsLevel of Service F for Grade A Streets
Level of Service F for Grade A Streets
 
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
 
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
 
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
 
'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling-The River Town Program
'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling-The River Town Program'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling-The River Town Program
'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling-The River Town Program
 
Federal Funding for Active Transportation and Recreation-Wesley Blount
Federal Funding for Active Transportation and Recreation-Wesley BlountFederal Funding for Active Transportation and Recreation-Wesley Blount
Federal Funding for Active Transportation and Recreation-Wesley Blount
 
A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities--Bike Parking Ap...
A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities--Bike Parking Ap...A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities--Bike Parking Ap...
A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities--Bike Parking Ap...
 
'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling-Lessons from the Historic Columbia Riv...
'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling-Lessons from the Historic Columbia Riv...'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling-Lessons from the Historic Columbia Riv...
'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling-Lessons from the Historic Columbia Riv...
 
Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling--ODOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling--ODOT Pedestrian and Bicycle ProgramSelling' Rural Communities on Cycling--ODOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling--ODOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
 
A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities-Level of Service...
A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities-Level of Service...A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities-Level of Service...
A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities-Level of Service...
 
Taking Pedestrian and Bicycle Counting Programs to the Next Level
Taking Pedestrian and Bicycle Counting Programs to the Next Level Taking Pedestrian and Bicycle Counting Programs to the Next Level
Taking Pedestrian and Bicycle Counting Programs to the Next Level
 
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Poli...
 
Federal Funding for Active Transportation and Recreation
Federal Funding for Active Transportation and RecreationFederal Funding for Active Transportation and Recreation
Federal Funding for Active Transportation and Recreation
 
Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences--Bria...
Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences--Bria...Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences--Bria...
Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences--Bria...
 
Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences--Bold...
Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences--Bold...Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences--Bold...
Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences--Bold...
 
Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes-SFMTA Urb...
Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes-SFMTA Urb...Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes-SFMTA Urb...
Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes-SFMTA Urb...
 
Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes
Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all ModesTransportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes
Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes
 
Integrating a Health Impact Assessment into District-Wide School Travel Plan...
	Integrating a Health Impact Assessment into District-Wide School Travel Plan...	Integrating a Health Impact Assessment into District-Wide School Travel Plan...
Integrating a Health Impact Assessment into District-Wide School Travel Plan...
 
Safer People, Safer Streets, and Safer Policies at USDOT--Dan Goodman
Safer People, Safer Streets, and Safer Policies at USDOT--Dan GoodmanSafer People, Safer Streets, and Safer Policies at USDOT--Dan Goodman
Safer People, Safer Streets, and Safer Policies at USDOT--Dan Goodman
 

#9 New Research on Pedestrian and Bicycle Behavior: Perceptions, Attitudes, and Habits - Manaugh

  • 1. Kevin Manaugh PhD Candidate McGill School of Urban Planning Pro Walk/Pro Bike Conference September 11, 2012 SCHOOL OF URBAN PLANNING
  • 2. Context  Why do people walk?  Quality of walking environment  Convenience  Necessity  Environmental Awareness  Cultural or family values  Financial Constraints  Enjoyment  Exercise  Social connections
  • 3. Walkability/Propensity to Walk  A vast literature explores walkability from a built environment standpoint  A vast literature also explores propensity to walk from a behavioural/psychological perspective  However, attempts to integrate these strands are less common  Many research and policy contexts ignore issues of motivation and satisfaction
  • 4. Big Questions  Built form versus personal, household, neighbourhood, cultural characteristics in walking decisions  Does satisfaction with walking trips vary by personal motivations? In addition to distance, slope, safety etc.
  • 5. 1) Context/Research Questions  How well do existing walkability indices explain the variance in the choice to walk?  Does this vary by trip purpose and socio- demographic factors?  What are the social equity implications of this?
  • 6. 100 90 80 Percentage of walking trips 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Quality of Walking Environment
  • 7. 100 90 80 Percentage of walking trips 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Quality of Walking Environment
  • 8. Percentage of shopping trips by walking by decile 60 50 40 Walkscore 30 WI (800 m) Walk Oppotunities Pedshed (800m) 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  • 9. Percentage of shopping trips by walking by decile 60 581 trips 50 271 by foot 40 Walkscore 30 WI (800 m) Walk Oppotunities Pedshed (800m) 20 468 trips 24 by foot 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  • 10. Percentage of School trips by walking by decile 40 35 30 25 Walkscore 20 WI (800 m) Walk Oppotunities Pedshed (800m) 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  • 11. Percentage of School trips by walking by decile 40 35 253 out of 917 trips 30 25 Walkscore 20 105 out of WI (800 m) 1063 trips Walk Oppotunities Pedshed (800m) 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  • 12. Sensitivity Analysis Probabilities calculated at the mean* by walkscore deciles No car low Retired Wealthy Middle age no Middle Class Large Young Wealthy income no kids Kids Families Families First Decile 72.1% 36.1% 12.6% 21.4% 30.6% 29.7% 18.5% 3.3% Fifth Decile 74.8% 65.2% 38.4% 43.6% 43.6% 49.7% 35.8% 16.2% Tenth Decile 78.0% 89.4% 79.5% 74.1% 61.0% 74.1% 63.1% 63.2% *36 year old female making a 734 meter (average length) shopping trip
  • 13. Urban Form Content Streets Destinations Intersections Parks Sidewalks Transit Trails Schools Resident Needs Desires Expectation Culture
  • 14. Urban Form Content Streets Destinations Intersections Parks Sidewalks Transit Trails Schools Resident Needs Desires Expectation Culture
  • 15. Urban Form Content Streets Destinations Intersections Parks Sidewalks Transit Trails Schools Resident Needs Desires Walkability Expectation Culture
  • 16. Conclusions (Part 1)  Equity Issues • People with limited choices are walking in neighborhoods that are not ideal for walking • Generalized indices (and performance measures) might miss this distinction • People walking does not necessarily equal good walking environment • Greater observed response among wealthy households should not imply directed policy response
  • 17. Lessons Learned  Walkability is not “one size fits all” but depends on:  TripPurpose  Socio-economic factors  Gender  Age  Can perhaps best be described as a “match” between built form factors and needs, preferences, and desires of local residents.  What next?
  • 18. Part 2 Does Distance Matter? Exploring the links between motivations and satisfaction in walking trips
  • 19. Context  How do values and motivations relate to satisfaction with walking trips?  Much of travel behaviour research focuses on built environment and proximity/accessibility issues  Motivations to engage in active transportation and derived satisfaction are often ignored
  • 20. Context  Most utility-maximization frameworks assume that travel time and distance are elements of a trip to be minimized  However, recent research has highlighted the fact that this may not always be the case  For example, do ‘environmentalists’ or ‘exercise junkies’ show a different response to trip characteristics?
  • 21. Data  Survey  Description of commute  Motivations for using chosen mode  Residential choice factors  Trip satisfaction  GIS  Slope  Other walkability variables  Trip Distance
  • 22. Methodology  Correlations among values, motivations, satisfaction levels, and trip characteristics  Clustering of respondents by motivations to engage in active transportation
  • 23. Initial Findings  No significant relationship between satisfaction and distance travelled or slope of path  Clustering of respondents by (self-reported) motivation for walking
  • 24. Cluster membership Elevation change Very Min (m) Max (m) Cluster Count (m) satisfied (%) Distance (m) Active cost Mimimizers 134 61.0** 19.4%**** 2034.2* 335.5 6068.6 Close Cost Mimimizers 88 29.7 25.0%**** 958.3 337.0 2354.3 Active Environmentalists 53 57.0** 52.8%*** 1801.3* 327.0 4020.9 Convenience 224 24.6 35.7% 846.3 194.5 3267.4 Close and exercise 106 30.9 40.6%*** 963.7 26.5 2862.5 Convenience and exercise 66 51.7** 39.4%*** 1675.6* 431.6 3561.6 *Statistically significant (ANOVA) F(5,671) = 61.18, p < .01(in relation to non-asterisks) ** (ANOVA) F(5,671) = 37.926, p < .01(in relation to non-asterisks) ***Chi-square (5, N = 671) = 27.58, p = .0001, higher than expected value **** Chi-square (5, N = 671) = 27.58, p = .0001, lower than expected value
  • 25. 100 90 80 70 60 Satisfaction 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Distance
  • 26. 100 90 80 70 60 Satisfaction 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Distance
  • 27. 70% 60% 50% Percent Very Satisfied 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Quintile of Distance
  • 28. 70% Expon. (Close Cost Mimizers) Expon. (Convience) 60% Expon. (Convinience and exercise) 50% Percent Very Satisfied 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Quintile of Distance
  • 29. 70% Expon. (Active cost Mimizers) 60% Expon. (Close and exercise) 50% Percent Very Satisfied 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Quintile of Distance
  • 30. 70% Expon. (Active Environmentalists) 60% 50% Percent Very Satisfied 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Quintile of Distance
  • 31. 70% Expon. (Active cost Mimizers) Expon. (Close Cost Mimizers) Expon. (Active Environmentalists) Expon. (Convience) 60% Expon. (Close and exercise) Expon. (Convinience and exercise) 50% Percent Very Satisfied 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Quintile of Distance
  • 32. 70% Expon. (Active cost Mimizers) Expon. (Close Cost Mimizers) Expon. (Active Environmentalists) Expon. (Convience) 60% Expon. (Close and exercise) Expon. (Convinience and exercise) 50% 507 metres 2817 metres Percent Very Satisfied 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Quintile of Distance
  • 33. Conclusions  People walk for a variety of reasons and motivations (many of which have nothing to do with built environment factors)  People's satisfaction with walking is correlated with these motivations  Satisfaction rates are generally high
  • 34. Conclusions  Some people, particularly those with more environmental awareness and propensity to exercise, are more satisfied with longer distance and greater slope
  • 35. Conclusions  This might have important implications about how walking behavior is understood, predicted, and modeled, particularly in terms of further expanding utility maximization models to include preferences
  • 36. Conclusions  Policy implications: Is the goal to:  Increase mode share? (GHG and CC)  Increase total walking? (Population Health)  Improve satisfaction of those already walking? (Equity)
  • 37. Conclusions  What does this all mean?  What are the most important, effective, efficient levers to increase walk/bike mode share?  Policies, social marketing, infrastructure?
  • 38. Kevin Manaugh kevin.manaugh@mail.mcgill.ca SCHOOL OF URBAN PLANNING