Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and

Creative Components Dissertations

Fall 2020

Enhancing Walkability in a Downtown: A Case Study of Adel, Iowa

Yaw Kwarteng

Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/creativecomponents

Part of the Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons

Recommended Citation
Kwarteng, Yaw, "Enhancing Walkability in a Downtown: A Case Study of Adel, Iowa" (2020). Creative
Components. 656.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/creativecomponents/656

This Creative Component is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones,
Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Creative
Components by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information,
please contact digirep@iastate.edu.
 Enhancing Walkability in a Downtown: A Case Study of Adel, Iowa

by

Yaw Yeboah Kwarteng

A creative component submitted to the graduate faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Major: Community and Regional Planning

Program of Study Committee:

Monica Haddad, Major Professor
Brian Gelder
Sungduck Lee

The student author, whose presentation of the scholarship herein was approved by the program
of study committee, is solely responsible for the content of this creative component. The
Graduate College will ensure this creative component is globally accessible and will not permit
alterations after a degree is conferred.

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

2020

Copyright © Cy Cardinal, 2020. All rights reserved.

 ii

DEDICATION

This report is dedicated to my mum, Akosua Gyapomaa. Your love keeps me going.
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... viii

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................5

Defining walkability .................................................................................................................. 5
Benefits of walkability............................................................................................................... 7
Walk score for the city of Adel ................................................................................................. 9
Empirical studies about walkability and planning ................................................................... 10
Measuring walkability with GIS.............................................................................................. 12

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................19

My study area .......................................................................................................................... 19
My methodological steps ......................................................................................................... 26
Calculating the Index of Walkability....................................................................................... 28
Land use mix ...................................................................................................................... 28
Connectivity Index ............................................................................................................. 29
Density................................................................................................................................ 31
Proximity ............................................................................................................................ 31
Streetscape Evaluation using GSV .......................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS ..................................................................................36

Measuring the Connectivity Index .......................................................................................... 36
Assessing Proximity of Land Uses .......................................................................................... 36
Measuring closest facilities (Current Land Use) ................................................................ 37
Measuring closest facilities (Future Land Use) .................................................................. 39
Land Use Mix .......................................................................................................................... 40
Measuring the Residential Density .......................................................................................... 41
Reclassification of Values of the Dimensions ......................................................................... 42
Creating the Walkability Index................................................................................................ 43
Comparing Walkability Indices for Downtown Adel.............................................................. 44
Google Street View (GSV) Measures ..................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................53
Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 53
Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................................... 55
Final Remarks .......................................................................................................................... 55
 iv

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................58

APPENDIX A. FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE CITY OF ADEL ..................................62

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASSESSING DOWNTOWN'S WALKABILITY

USING GSV ..................................................................................................................................63
 v

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Walk score for the city of Adel ..................................................................................... 10

Figure 2: Map of the State of Iowa and Dallas County ................................................................ 19

Figure 3: City of Adel ................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 4: Downtown Adel Boundary based on Adel Downtown Plan ......................................... 21

Figure 5: Current Land Use based on Adel’s Land Use Map ....................................................... 22

Figure 6: Current Land Use Map Aggregated .............................................................................. 23

Figure 7: Future Land Use based on Adel Downtown Plan ......................................................... 24

Figure 8: Future Land Use Aggregated ........................................................................................ 25

Figure 9: Alleyway Beautification Areas ..................................................................................... 26

Figure 10: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 28

Figure 11: Street Links and Nodes................................................................................................ 30

Figure 12: Locations where Streetscapes were Examined using GSV ......................................... 34

Figure 13: Network Analysis (Current Land Use) ........................................................................ 38

Figure 14: Network Analyst (Future Land Use) ......................................................................... 40

Figure 15: Walkability Index for Downtown Adel ....................................................................... 43

Figure 16: Walkability Index with Alleyway Beautification Incorporated .................................. 46

Figure 17: Sidewalk Classification Criteria .................................................................................. 47

Figure 18: What are the conditions of the sidewalk from the observed location? ........................ 48

Figure 19: Can Two People Fit on the Sidewalk from the Observed Location? .......................... 48

Figure 20: Is Pedestrian Crossing available at the Observed Location? ....................................... 49

Figure 21: Streetscape Features in Downtown ............................................................................. 50

Figure 22: Examples of Streetscape Features ............................................................................... 51

 vi

Figure 23: Condition of Street Landscape .................................................................................... 52

Figure 24: Potential for Sidewalk Width Expansion and Crosswalk Development ..................... 54
 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: The Four Dimensions of Walkability Mentioned by Various Authors .......................... 27

Table 2: Density Measure and Category ....................................................................................... 31

Table 3: Proximity Matrix ............................................................................................................ 32

Table 4: Dimensions of walkability and their Formula ................................................................ 32

Table 5: Spatial Data Used in Case Study .................................................................................... 35

Table 6: Distances to Activity Centers (Current Land Use) ......................................................... 39

Table 7: Distances to Activity Centers (Future Land Use) ........................................................... 40

Table 8: Land Use Percentages in Downtown .............................................................................. 41

Table 9: Classification Matrix ...................................................................................................... 42

Table 10: Walkability Matrix........................................................................................................ 45

 viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my profound gratitude to my committee chair, Monica Haddad,

and my committee members, Brian Gelder, and Sungduck Lee, for their guidance and support

throughout the course of this research.

As Well, I extend my heartfelt admiration to Dennis Kwadwo Okyere, you are a pearl. I

would also like to acknowledge my friends, colleagues, the department faculty, and staff for

making my time at Iowa State University a marvelous experience and a worthwhile dream.
 ix

ABSTRACT

Downtowns have the potential to be a main attention point for small communities, the

easiest centers to turn into pedestrian-focused mixed-use areas. Additionally, downtowns have

the strongest connection to the civic features of neighborhoods, as buildings with civic

significance are located in downtown. Buildings with noteworthy meanings are in downtowns

and serve as a point for public gathering and hearing. Therefore, maintaining and improving the

quality of access to these buildings can spur socio-economic development.

In furtherance of these desires, the main goal of this study is to estimate the Walkability

Index, reflecting forms of walking to daily destinations in the downtown of the city of Adel.

There is a strong relationship between walkability and the set-up of the built environment where

people live. It is thus imperative that the design of urban form supports physical human

activities. Hence, the location of shops, health facilities, parks and open space, residential

districts, and other land use, in relation to each other are crucial elements that influence the

walkability of a place.

To effectively assess walkability, it is essential to identify the dimensions involved in

measuring walkability. Connectivity, proximity, land use mix, and residential density are the

necessary variables for estimating the index of waking in an urban setting. Using spatial analysis

in Geographic Information System (GIS) is an established method to objectively automate the

measurement of these dimensions. To help evaluate the city’s newly adopted future land use plan

to guide the development of the downtown from 2020-2040, the index was calculated for both

the current and adopted future land uses.

To calculate the overall index, the following steps were met: the network analyst

extension of ArcGIS was used to measure proximity, gamma index was calculated for
 x

connectivity, net residential density was used to measure density, and the entropy index

calculation used to estimate the land use mix. Each one of these dimensions was reclassified with

values ranging from 0-100. Additionally, the study uses Google Street View approach to

evaluate streetscape features’ capability to provide opportunities for walking in downtown Adel.

The results of the study explicitly indicated that assessment of walkability standards can

be performed on both existing built environment and proposed land use plans of a downtown

neighborhood. The findings indicate that the proposed future land use will increase the index

from 65.6 to 72.9, demonstrating that the recently adopted Downtown Plan will indeed make

Adel a more walkable community. Evaluation of the streetscape features revealed the need to

improve infrastructure for pedestrians, such as pedestrian signages and urban street elements, to

increase pedestrian walking experience. This methodological approach can be applied to other

cities that want to measure walkability. This study can be used by urban planners and

policymakers to assess whether future plans do create opportunities for pedestrians to increase

the level of walking.

 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Physical inactivity or sedentary lifestyles can result in preventable endemic health

exposures such as obesity (Hruby & Hu, 2015; New York State Department of Health, 2020).

Obesity has become the second primary preventable cause of death in the United States (New York

State Department of Health, 2020). Society is cognizant of this needless nuisance, and therefore

advocacy for healthier lifestyles, change in behavior, and opportunities for physical activities, such

as walking, is on the rise (Zhang & Mu, 2019). To reinforce these facts, one of the United Nations’

goals for Sustainable Development “is to ensure a healthy life and promote well-being for all at all

ages” (United Nations, 2019). Urban planners face a conundrum when finding a balance between

development and community design to achieve an inclusive, safe, and sustainable urban

environment. This evidence has buoyed planners and policymakers alike to recognize a walkable

built environment as the surest way to improve public health (Adkins, Makarewicz, Scanze,

Ingram, & Luhr, 2017).

Access to open space goes hand-in-hand with walkability and plays an essential role in

ensuring healthy lifestyles and promoting well-being. However, most cities have struggled

considerably in providing convenient access to open spaces for their population. To illustrate, data

from 2018 about 220 global cities depicted that only 21 percent of the population had access to

open spaces, not because of their inadequate share of an urban area but their uneven spatial

distribution across land uses in these cities (United Nations, 2019). Nowadays, national urban

policies should target strategies that react directly to urbanization challenges, such as providing

efficient walkability through deliberate and planned development.

Furthermore, a dependency on automobiles, which is a significant characteristic of lifestyle

in American cities, contributes to substantial amounts of air pollution. In the U.S. in 2019,
 2

automobile dependency resulted in over 55% of nitrogen oxide releases and 27% of pollution from

transportation (USEPA, 2019). This happens because cities have created mono-functional car

reliant regions where people have nothing to walk to (Dovey & Pafka, 2020), hence they drive to

all destinations in the urban fabric.

Within this context, the objective of this study is to measure walkability in the downtown

of a small town in Iowa that is developing a land use plan. The study poses the following spatial

questions: How well does the current and future arrangement of land uses allow people to move

around the urban fabric? How can spatial analysis be used to automate the measurement of these

dimensions objectively? How does streetscape features provide opportunities for walking?

To answer these questions my main goal is to measure the level of connectivity, proximity

of uses, residential density, and the different land use mix to estimate the Walkability Index,

reflecting forms of walking to daily destinations in the downtown of the city of Adel. The

methodological steps to be followed include: identify the dimensions of measuring walkability,

identify variables of measuring the dimensions, use network analyst, to measure the index and use

Google Street View approach to assess streetscape features’ capacity to support walking in

downtown.

Downtowns certainly can provide an alternative option for the suburban environment and

its associated social and economic costs. Downtowns can be the most accessible centers to turn

into pedestrian-focused centers, due to their mixed-use, and their position as the main attention

point for small communities (Horan, Yang, & Eidt, 2015). Moreover, it has the strongest

association with the civic features of a neighborhood, as buildings with civic significance are in

downtowns. As there is the tendency to obtain and maintain a continued public-private sector

partnership in these centers, they can ensure a robust future investment (Horan, Yang, & Eidt,
 3

2015) and ensure a continual assembly of people in these centers in the community. Moreover,

buildings with significant meanings in America are concentrated in downtowns and serve as a

point for public gathering and hearing (Rypkema, 2003). Downtowns are of prime importance to

every community in America. Therefore, cities must endeavor to improve and maintain the quality

of access to these buildings in this central point in the city, to serve as an impetus for social and

economic development. Thus, making downtowns more walkable offers vitality and a distinct

sense of place for people.

According to Ackerman (2005), there is a strong relationship between walkability and the

set-up of the natural environment. Therefore, the design of urban form must support human

physical activities. The level of walkability of a place assesses its physical arrangement and has

the potential to minimize or maximize environmental impacts from automobile use. Indeed, the

location of shops, health facilities, parks, and open space, residential districts, and other land uses

are crucial elements that influence the walkability of a place (Ackerson, 2005). For example, a

place characterized by low walkability enforces over-dependence on automobiles for the day-to-

day activities, which affects the sustainability of the area over time.

Knowing the level of walkability of a specific place can assist urban planners to either re-

design, rectify, or sustain the urban form in a location. It is critical that urban planners assess the

existing structure to determine the future urban form to influence physical activity. Consequently,

providing urban pedestrian facilities that improve quality health lifestyles, between trip origination

and destination points, is highly recommendable. Pedestrian infrastructure for people who might

not be able to afford automobiles (Dobesova & Krivka, 2012) and its associated costs is an

inclusive way of urban development. These changes could help people to minimize their
 4

automobile dependency and indulge in physical activities that promote clean sustainable

environments and personal health.

This study is organized as follows. The next section presents the literature review, focusing

on previous research that evaluates and presents methods to assess walkability. The third section

has information about the methodology, study area and data description. The fourth section

discusses the dimensions of walkability, Google Street View (GSV) and the results. The final

section describes the recommendations, limitations and the conclusion of the research.
 5

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In this section, I define walkability, its benefits and describe empirical studies about

walkability in tandem with planning. This part also explains the use of GIS to measure walkability

for effective urban planning, design, and development, and lastly, how Google Street View (GSV)

can be used to assess walkability.

Defining walkability

In many instances, planning for walkability usually has faced the problem where the

actual definition of walkability is not clearly outlined. This has allowed the pedestrians space to

be minimized while attaining targets of easing vehicle flows, accommodating heavy

automobiles, controlling only land uses and making more money (Lo, 2009). In other words,

automobile had priority over pedestrians. While this kind of planning does not address the

meaning of walkability, it influences the planning for pedestrians in any urban environment.

How walkability is portrayed has huge implications on general understanding and the design of

urban spaces and connections in community settings (Lo, 2009).

The ability of a community to provide prospect for walking is often referred as

walkability (Weinberger & Sweet, 2012). Walkability can be defined as a potential mode of

choice for people to move between points (Dörrzapf, Kovács-Győri, Resch, & Zeile, 2019),

usually from their default origins to attraction centers (home to schools, work, grocery store, etc.)

to accomplish a certain purpose, mostly by walking. Walkability in a simpler term is the

channels of opportunities to walk in an urban setting, and not actual walking behavior

(Weinberger & Sweet, 2012). Thus, walkability can be referred to as the physical environment,

with its basic understanding extended to add pedestrians’ sentiment and sensitivity.
 6

Although walkability has come to occupy a vital role in urban design and planning to

address issues of public health and social equity, a definitive concept for the term has recently

become elusive (Dovey & Pafka, 2020). According to Dovey & Pafka (2020), density, land use

mix and network connectivity can be said to be the primarily recognized terms to define

walkability, and any other single set of capacities or measures can result in a misconception, nor

can the theory be reduced to just actual levels of walking. Thus, the concept now captures inter-

relativity between abstract set of factors, namely, connectivity, land-use mix and density of

buildings and people.

Practically, travel behavioral research has used density as a substitute for many features

that affected walking (Weinberger & Sweet, 2012). Meanwhile, there are other equally important

measures that affect walking in the built environment: Distance to possible transit, Street

connectivity and the built environment design, Building and Land use mix, Accessibility of

desired destinations, and Land use density in the built environment (Weinberger & Sweet, 2012).

Density alone cannot be used to substitute for any of these measures in a proper

definition of walkability. Understanding the concept of walkability can aid approximating the

amount of space to efficiently optimize for pedestrians in the urban settings (Lo, 2009).

Furthermore, neighborhood measures that through other literatures have been established to help

augment the definition of walkability incorporate the following: pedestrian buffering from

vehicular traffic; the absence of high-speed and heavy vehicular traffic, Landscaping and street

trees; actual and Perceived safety, Sense of place, Continuous and properly maintained

sidewalks; and path directness (Lo, 2009).

As much as density is an essential part of expanding opportunities of walking, it cannot

stand alone as the only measure of assessing walkability of a neighborhood. Ineffectively

 7

outlining walkability can result in induced demand where neighborhoods and downtowns suffer

the most. The unanticipated consequences stemming from a diminished holistic approach

reduces the chance of properly enlivening city life in downtowns and neighborhoods (Benfield,

2012). Thus, all efforts will result in more conveyance of more vehicular mobiles in sensitive

places in the neighborhood environment, instead of critically treating these public spaces for the

people.

Therefore, characteristics of the built environment that can increase walkability,

throughout literature, should always include; Land use mix, the level of street connection to

desired locations and the directness to required paths, well-maintained streetscapes, continuous

sidewalks, land use diversity, convenience etc. These features of the urban environment are

encompassing in evaluating conditions for walking, and as such, defining possible ways of

improving these characteristics when lacking neighborhood’s setting.

Benefits of walkability

Walking is the most ordinary mode of moving to any destination (Kelly, Murphy, &

Mutrie, 2017). Traversing the urban environment includes some form of walking, whether going

to work, home, or other places for social functions. Walking is convenient, low cost, low risk and

accessible for most people (pedbikeinfo, 2010; Kelly, Murphy, & Mutrie, 2017).

Environmental benefits Adequately replacing shorter trips with walking can

reduce the amount of energy consumed otherwise. Transportation is accountable for 80%

emissions from carbon monoxide and a third of emissions from carbon dioxide in 2007 in the

United States (pedbikeinfo, 2010). Over-reliance on usage of automobile and provisions for its

use do not affect pedestrian spaces, but also the environment that sustain the life of humans,

trees, and water bodies. Improved walkability results in reduced land required to construct roads

and for parking infrastructure (Litman, 2018).

 8

Health benefits Investing in infrastructure that facilitates invigorating physical activity

can tackle obesity and other ailments like diabetes, chronic illnesses, stroke, heart diseases etc.

(pedbikeinfo, 2010). Since walking is weight bearing activity, the body mass of heavier

individuals makes them use more energy to walk a given distance, in comparison to lighter

people (Kelly, Murphy, & Mutrie, 2017). A variety of health outcomes is also related with

refining avenues for physical activity, like increase in metabolism, musculoskeletal function,

mental well-being and immune abilities (Kelly, Murphy, & Mutrie, 2017).

Transportation benefits Pedestrians can sometimes circumvent stalemate traffic and

arrive at their location faster by using walking or bicycles than they would have if they used

automobiles. Integrating spaces for pedestrians and even bicycle riders can ensure people have

access to different modal options to choose (pedbikeinfo, 2010). About 72% of trips less than

three miles are made in cars, a characteristic of many trips in America (pedbikeinfo, 2010).

Economic benefits Car ownership and operation in America is expensive, with the typical

ownership and operation costs pegged at 18% of typical household income (pedbikeinfo, 2010).

Improving avenues for walking can reduce the transportation costs incurred by individuals, end

in health cost savings from improved physical activity and increase local business activities

(Litman, 2018).

Social benefits Walking creates an intrinsic benefit of producing neighborhood cohesion,

community interaction and the chance for conserving historic resources (Litman, 2018).

Individuals living in high volumes of traffic neighborhoods have less chance of seeing their

neighbors as compared to places with possibilities for walking. Improving walkability thus

affects the livability of a community. Furthermore, seniors and young people can have a sense of
 9

independence when there is a provision for more options to travel, especially when they cannot

drive or choose not to (pedbikeinfo, 2010).

Walk score for the city of Adel

Walkscore.com is a very popular webpage created by a private company, which uses

distances from one point of a locality to varying locations. The score is usually between 0 – 100

based on walking to destinations such as grocery stores, schools, parks, restaurants, and retail.

The aim of the score is to promote walkable neighborhoods, as it is the firmest avenue for the

environment, health, and the economy.

Walk score uses a patented system to determine the walkability of a spatial location. The

system examines hundreds of walking routes to closest amenities. Services within 5 minutes of

walking (under 0.25miles) are awarded full points of 100. The system uses the distance decay

method to measure services that are distant. The system also considers population density and

road metrics like intersection density and block length to ascertain the friendliness of the

neighborhood to walking. Services that are more than 30 minutes of walk time are deemed not

walkable and given a point of 0. Walk score uses walking to the following categories: Dining &

Drinking, Groceries, Shopping, Errands, Parks, Schools and Culture and Entertainment, to

determine the total walk points for the whole city of Adel (walkscore.com, 2020). Adel has a

walk score of 61 out of 100 (see Figure 1), meaning the place is somewhat walkable and errands

can be fairly accomplished on foot.

 10

Figure 1: Walk score for the city of Adel

(Source: walkscore.com)

Empirical studies about walkability and planning

State and local authorities are leaning towards land development and urban design as a

measure to decrease automobile use and reduce its associated environmental and social costs

(Ewing & Cervero, Travel and the Built Environment, 2010). Ewing and Cervero (2010)

conducted meta-analysis of around 200 studies that relate the measures of the built environment

to travel and conclusively found that walking can be related to the land use diversity, density,

and destinations with the walking distance. A well-connected network of streets, with sidewalks

and destinations in proximity can invariably contribute to increased levels of walking and

bicycling (Dill, Mohr, & Ma, 2014).

 11

Additionally, if local authorities design land use policies that offer alternatives to drive

less and tend to non-motorized modes more, residents will follow (Cao, Mokhtarian, & Handy,

2009). Though studies have found out that suburbanization supports the attitude of driving more,

smart growth strategies can modify travel behavior for individuals. Thus, according to Cao,

Mokhtarian, & Handy (2009) observing travel behavior was a direct correlation between locality

qualities and individuals’ travel decisions, for non-motorized travel and its frequency.

Badland, et al., (2017), identified 14 state level urban planning policies devised to

promote walkability and developed spatial measures for further testing. Afterwards, geocoded

population data were linked with these spatial measures and tested with walking behavior in

adults. All the 14 state level policies spatially implemented were distinctively associated with

neighborhood walking for transport. Remarkably, residents living in well-connected streets,

shorter distances to activity centers, higher densities and availability of mixed uses had higher

preference for walking.

Intriguingly, previous research on travel behavior noted an undisputable link between

walkability and the built environment. Researchers that only used density as a proxy, not

including all the other characteristics that affected walking, was an incomplete method

(Weinberger & Sweet, 2012). Considering the difficulty in using density as the only metric for

all the recognizable predictor for walking in a neighborhood, Weinberger & Sweet (2012) used

data from walkscore.com to develop models for measuring walking. The authors concluded that

walk score can be a reasonable experimental method in evaluating trip impacts. The study also

acknowledged other measures (land use accessibility, network connectivity etc.) that influence

travel behaviors in the urban settings.

 12

In summary, to efficiently plan for walkable neighborhoods, factors such as

connectivity, land-use mix, and density of buildings and people considerably factored has the

prospective of building unanimity for planning policies for walking. Factoring these respective

variations in the built environment are in no doubt paramount to the achievement of the feat of

walkable neighborhoods. Which in turn can help achieve healthy, low-carbon, productive, and

creative cities.

Measuring walkability with GIS

GIS is a technology that can be used to objectivity perform complex urban functions, and

moreover, measure elements that may affect walking in the physical environment. Several

empirical studies have thrown luminance on similar but different approaches to measuring the

neighborhoods’ walkability index, with strong review on the built environment and travel

behavior.

To ascertain the degree at which the built environment component affects physical

activities and transport, Leão, Abonizio, Reis, & Kanashiro (2020) proposed a combination of

built environment components for evaluating walkability in the built environment. The

components of walkability studied were the residential density, retail floor-area ratio,

intersection density, Land-use mix (entropy), space syntax and integration, land parcels values,

and real estate values. These variables were employed to measure walkability for mid-size cities

in Brazil. The study highlighted how the variables selected for assessing the built environment

have a level of positive effect on walking behavior. However, there was a remarkable weight of

land use mix over walking behavior.

Connections between walkability and active transportation in children aged between 10-

13 were analyzed by Williams, Borghese, & Janssen (2018). Connectivity, proximity,

infrastructure for pedestrians, and safety were measured, using GIS to establish an index for the
 13

relationship between the built environment’s construct for walkability and active transport for

children to schools, as well as other destinations. Children, living in most walkable zones,

engaged in active transportation twice as much as those in the least walkable zones.

The walkability index has been further been assessed by studying the organization of the

components of neighborhood walkability and walking levels (Stockton, et al., 2016). The study

by Stockton et al. (2016) measured the neighborhood’s makeup for walkability and walking

levels in adults from data from a spatially contiguous census area. Though there has been

recognized positive correlations between various components of the built environment and

walking, the study was designed to use three core components, that is street connectivity,

residential dwelling density and land use mix, to measure levels of walking behaviors. Adults

living in more walkable neighborhoods were noted with longer weekly walking time, thus the

walkability construct can predict walking behavior in adults.

Walkable access is one of the very important elements in deciding either to walk or

otherwise. Tiran, Lakner & Drobne (2019) used web survey to ascertain information about

proclivity to walk to different services in Slovenia. The study modeled walking accessibility to

different amenities in the study area by a network approach, combined these distances to obtain

the overall accessibility and analyzed the overall distances in GIS. Distance decay functions

(proximity) and accessibility indices was the two components used to measure walkability to

closest facilities. The study impartially considered the propensity to walk to different locations or

services in an urban environment. The study established the propensity to walk to certain

amenities is determined by their respective functions. Though walking is decided by the types of

amenities, it can be further used to assess the residential settings’ condition and site development

procedure for location of amenities.

 14

Ackerson (2005) assessed a neighborhood’s streetscape and its walkability in Springfield

and Bend, Oregon. The focus of the study was to evaluate how walkable a neighborhood is near

middle schools where structures that boost pedestrian protection were provided. He used

streetscape features to supplement neighborhood scale variables and to compare students’ trip

behavior amid safety attributes identified in the respective neighborhoods. The emphasis of this

research was comparing how walkability of suburban schools diverge from schools located in the

urban core. The study also assessed how students with equally long routes will choose walkable

and safer routes to school and the physical distribution of safety facilities between specific

school neighborhoods and school districts affect such a decision. The study concluded that street

segments with fewer dead ends, developed in terms of pedestrians’ amenities and sidewalk

connections have higher walkability ratings. As well, students take shortest routes to schools, as

they tend to be more walkable than longer routes.

Similarly, Mantri (2008) analyzed different models of walkability to recommend a

standard GIS-based approach to assess walkability for dissimilar neighborhoods. The objective

of the study was to identify measures of walkability and devise a GIS model for measuring the

walkability index of a neighborhood. The main measures for walkability index identified from

literature in this research were a neighborhood’s land use mix, street connectivity, proximity,

density, and the safety of the neighborhood/place. Mantri (2008) after scrutiny of various

research into walkability and identification of variety of features of walkability from literature,

identified variables that define walkability and incorporated these variables into a model (GIS-

Based) to derive the walkability index for the neighborhood of interest. GIS based approach to

measure the index can be an ideal method as it is a software that has the capability to analyze
 15

distinct datasets, which may be spatial or otherwise (Mantri, 2008), especially ideal for a concept

as walkability.

On the other hand, Dobesova and Krivka (2012) used a methodology developed by IPEN

(International Physical Activity and Environment Network) to measure the walkability index of

Olomouc City, Czech Republic. The methodology developed by IPEN comprises of putting

together four partial indexes to obtain the walkability index. The partial parts are indexes of the

FAR (floor area ratio), connectivity, Entropy and Household density. As GIS is a practical

technology for processing available urban spatial data and census data, a programmed system for

collective processing was used. The input data utilized was in the form of a shapefile: land use,

lines of roads, points of stores/commercial centers and their area, the urban unit with details

about households, to facilitate convenient calculation of the index.

Attributes like dwelling density, connectivity, land-use mix, and net retail area can also

be used to audit the walkability of a place (Leslie, Butterworth, & Edwards, 2006). The study by

Leslie, Butterworth, & Edwards (2006) used these four attributes and readily available GIS data

to decipher the walkability of a geographic jurisdiction to assist in influencing urban planning

decisions in future transportation and urban design planning to influence walking. The study

established the need for transportation investment and connecting cul-de-sacs to improve street

connectivity, especially in mixed use and compact areas that offer little opportunity for

navigation.

In summary, the path to achieving a walkable neighborhood requires critical attention to

respective attributes to the achievement of the concept as connectivity, density, proximity, and

land use mix in the urban set-up. Focusing only on an aspect of the built environment can affect
 16

its resilience and sustainability. It is therefore imperative to have a critical look at the

development and maintenance of these facets of the urban design.

Assessing walkability with GSV

Several in-person methods have been employed to evaluate walkability over the years.

However, using internet-based approach (such as GSV) can modestly reduce the costs of

accurately collecting data for neighborhood audits (Clarke, et al., 2010). Clarke, et al., (2010)

compared using GSV to capture neighborhood characteristics as an alternative to in-person

method. They used data obtained in city of Chicago to assess the reliability of GSV by

contrasting data obtained through virtual means to data acquired through in-person audits. They

found that data obtained through virtual audit procedures can be reliable in assessing

neighborhood characteristics including recreational facilities, environment for food and myriad

uses of land.

Rundle, Bader, Richards, Neckerman, & Teitler (2011) evaluated the practicability of

using Google Street View to examine neighborhood features. They compared neighborhood

measurements data collected by GSV and coded in 2008 with prior audit data collected in 2007.

They collected around 140 items including aesthetics, physical disorder, pedestrian safety,

motorized parking and traffic, sidewalk amenities etc. by in-person audit process. They found a

reasonably high tally between these two audit systems (in-person and GSV).

Additionally, Lee & Talen (2014) did an extensive comparative study that reviewed some

of these different methods used in calculation of the index. The study examined diverse studies

done through different in-person and secondary sources for walkability evaluation by researchers

and compared it with the possibility of a combination of a GIS and Google Street View audit

methods. Though there are several audit methods for measuring the subject matter outlined, the

main emphasis of the research focus on the physical elements used in only two methods, in-
 17

person surveillance and GSV methods. The study conclusively reiterated the effectiveness of

both up-to-date GIS layers and Google Street View in getting data relevant to walkability, and

thus GSV measurement can replace in-person data acquisition techniques.

As there is increasing advancement in the application of technology in examining

neighborhood streetscape, Badland, Opit, Witten, Kearns, & Suzanne (2010) conducted a survey

to examine the efficacies of both physical and virtual streetscape audits. They examined built

environment attributes closely related to walking in 48 neighborhood segments in New Zealand.

The neighborhood streetscape audits were conducted both on-site and remotely to compare and

assess the level of agreement between the physical and virtual audits. Both physical and remote

audits were within acceptable level of agreement thus GSV was identified as a resource efficient

and acceptable alternative to in-person audits.

The advantage of virtual streetscape audits includes the ability of the researcher to

remotely access locations, and reduction in research costs, like transportation costs and time to

get to the location is considerably saved. These studies therefore depict a strong possibility of

using GSV as a secondary source for collecting data for neighborhood characteristics to be used

in examining walkability. Thus, GSV can replace in-person audit methods used to collect data

for measuring walkability in assessing neighborhood characteristics.

The built environment features and walking

The concept of understanding walkability of an area should include ways the built

environment influences walking as the manner in which buildings are arranged and placed in a

setting affects the manner of walking in said environment. Conversely, the level of walking in an

area increases exponentially when people feel a sense of ownership over the streets they walk

(Singh, 2016). On the other hand, if streets are not controlled in any manner, the streets fail to
 18

promote walking for the residents in the area. Thereby, the built environment’s physical features

affect the overall walkability and walking behavior that will be exhibited in a setting.

Physical streetscape features that affect walking include sidewalk width, street width, tree

canopies and the arrangement of buildings in the built environment. Physical features that

translate into urban design qualities like linkage, imageability, coherence, human scale,

complexity, legibility, and enclosure (Ewing & Handy, 2009; Singh, 2016). These urban design

qualities compositely promote a sense of safety, comfort, and interest, which translate into

walking; Street landscape (imageability), Building appearance (complexity), Street furniture and

other street items (Human scale), Sidewalk continuity (Linkage), Tree canopies (comfort), and

Pedestrian signage and elements (Coherence).

 19

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

This section includes a description of the study area, my conceptual framework, the

methodological steps to be followed to answer the research questions, and the data to be

collected.

My study area

The City of Adel is in Dallas County, centrally situated (see figure 2) in the State of

Iowa, between 41 37’ north latitude and 1.18’ west longitude. The county administration is

located in Adel, which is the oldest town in Dallas County (Wikipedia, 2020). Adel covers a total

land area of 3.58 sq. mi, has an estimated 2019 population of 4,030 and thus a population density

of 861 per sq. mi, which is greater than the State’s average population density (US Census

Bureau, 2019). It lies west of Des Moines, the State’s capital, and west of West Des Moines and

Waukee.

Figure 2: Map of the State of Iowa and Dallas County

(Source: Wikipedia)

Adel is part of the Racoon River Trail cities in the Des Moines Metropolitan Area, which

attracts people to bike, walk and enjoy other recreational activities, as well as the small town feel

of the built environment. In 2018, Confluence, a landscape architecture, planning and urban
 20

design firm, was contracted to develop and update the comprehensive plan, helping the city in

spatial planning and design of city, and addressing various land uses issues and community

facilities and services projects (City of Adel, 2019). Below is the map of city of Adel (see Figure

3) with a highlight on the where downtown is located.

Figure 3: City of Adel

Specifically, the scope of the study will be narrowed to the downtown of the city. In

August 2019, the Iowa State graduate students in Community and Regional Planning, led by

Professor Monica Haddad, started working with city for ideas on how to specifically develop

their downtown for the year 2040. These development insights show off signs of investment the

city is laying into the future development of the place. One of the aims of the study was to
 21

increase walking opportunities and develop downtown to be become pedestrian friendly. The

downtown, which is located almost at the north-eastern part of the city, made up of around 160

parcels of various land uses (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Downtown Adel Boundary based on Adel Downtown Plan

The final downtown plan developed by the graduate students at Iowa State University,

presented the current land use as depicted on Figure 5. The land uses divided into public, single,

and multi-family residential, commercial, public, industrial and Office uses. It is important to

highlight that there were 54 residential parcels and 108 parcels for other types of land use in the

downtown. However, for future comparison in the spatial analysis, it was necessary to re-classify

land use into residential, commercial, office, public and industrial land use spaces, as shown in

Figure 6.
 22

Figure 5: Current Land Use based on Adel’s Land Use Map

(Source: Adel Downtown Plan 2020-2040)
 23

Figure 6: Current Land Use Map Aggregated

After revision of the current land use, and the expressed desires of downtown residents

through various community participation programs, a future land use plan for the downtown was

developed, as depicted in Figure 7. Land Use categories were subdivided to separate commercial

into those that serve the downtown neighborhood and the whole community, and public land use

into community, city, and county properties. Residential land use was segmented into

residential-single family, residential - medium density and residential high density. Additional

categories that were included were open space and mixed uses.

The Mixed land use was included in the plan to ensure co-existence of more than one

land use function, including commercial and residential, to increase dwelling opportunities in the

downtown. Mixed uses were to give emphasis to diversity of uses and higher concentration of
 24

people to provide the needed market for businesses, and even attract more businesses. The Dallas

County Court and other county offices in the downtown were described as Public spaces because

they serve people in the Dallas County, as well as the local community. Churches and publicly

owned parking spaces were categorized under Public spaces. Commercial land uses were located

for the present use of the land and strategic location in downtown.

Figure 7: Future Land Use based on Adel Downtown Plan

(Source: Adel Downtown Plan 2020-2040)

For spatial analysis of walkability of the future land use, it was necessary to reclassify the

land uses into residential-single family, residential - medium density and residential high density,

open space, mixed uses, commercial and public spaces, as shown in figure 8.
 25

Figure 8: Future Land Use Aggregated

The study area was selected due to the expressed aspirations of the decision-makers and

residents for a pedestrian-friendly and economic-viable environment. Walkable neighborhoods

have been identified to present opportunities for physical activities and boost local businesses

and economic activities. The study aimed to evaluate the current land use, in comparison with

the proposed future land use to facilitate assisting decision and policy makers for the area in

pursing the right principles in the development of the downtown. The study thus evaluates both

present and future Land-uses for their walkability indices to provide feedback to policy makers

as they plan the adoption of future land use, and possibly recommend steps to maintain and

improve opportunities for pedestrians in the neighborhoods.

 26

The study also assessed the impart the potential alleyway beautification areas will have

on the walkability of Adel, which was included in the Downtown Master Plan. Figure 9 shows

the alleyways beautification areas proposed in the Downtown Master Plan for Adel 2020-2040.

Figure 9: Alleyway Beautification Areas

(Source: City of Adel Downtown Plan 2020-2040)

My methodological steps

Though the concept of walkability has been explored, measuring it is still complex and

intricate. Literature review and studies have delved considerably into how to best to measure this

idea. For the purposes of this study, four dimensions of walkability, found in Table 1 was used to

measure walkability of the study area.

 27

Table 1: The Four Dimensions of Walkability Mentioned by Various Authors

Dimensions Authors

Land-use mix Dobesova and Krivka (2012); Leão, Abonizio, Reis, & Kanashiro

(2020); Stockton, et al., (2016); Leslie, Butterworth, & Edwards

(2006); & Mantri (2008)

Connectivity Williams, Borghese, & Janssen (2018); Stockton et al. (2016); Leslie,

Butterworth, & Edwards (2006); Dobesova and Krivka (2012); &

Mantri (2008)

Density Leão, Abonizio, Reis, & Kanashiro (2020); Stockton et al. (2016);

Dobesova and Krivka (2012); Leslie, Butterworth, & Edwards (2006);

& Mantri (2008)

Proximity Mantri, 2008; Williams, Borghese, & Janssen (2018); & Tiran, Lakner

& Drobne (2019)

The conceptual framework that guided the flow of the study is shown in Figure 10 below.

The dimensions of measuring walkability (connectivity, proximity, land use mix, density) was

collectively assessed to find out the index of walkability. The index was calculated for the

current land use, future land use and the future land use with the alleyways, which will inform

urban planning and design for the future development of the study area (downtown Adel).
 28

Figure 10: Conceptual Framework

Calculating the Index of Walkability

Walking is a multidisciplinary activity and therefore creating the index of walkability

involves four dimensions, i.e., connectivity, Land use mix, proximity, and residential density,

earlier identified through literature. The following section defines the dimensions and identifies

the best method to calculate the respective indices.

Land use mix

Land use mix entails the heterogeneity of land uses in a location. The neighborhood land

use mix, often referred to as the entropy, is the proportion of number of land use categories to the

actual percentage of individual land uses in an area. Measuring the land use mix of an area can

be facilitated by using the entropy score (Frank, et al., 2010; Leão, Abonizio, Reis, & Kanashiro,

2020; Dobesova & Krivka, 2012). The entropy score determines how different land uses within a

spatially defined area are scattered (Leslie, Butterworth, & Edwards, 2006). Residents who

usually live in places with diverse opportunities of attraction tend to make more frequent shorter

trips by walking (Bhadra, Sazid, & Esraz-Ul-Zannat , 2015). The level of diversity of land uses
 29

display how interesting the urban form is and how favorable the land is to walk, to access

different destinations.

The Entropy score is calculated as:

𝑘 (𝑃𝑘 In𝑃𝑘 )
Land Use Mix (LUM) = − 𝐼𝑛𝑁

where, k = Category of land use, P = proportion of land use devoted to a specific

land use, N = number of total land use categories

The entropy score is usually between 0-1, 1 depicting complete heterogeneity of the

specified area and 0 complete homogeneity. Homogeneity means, all the land uses are of one,

same category, on the other hand heterogeneity indicates that the urban environment has

uniformly distributed land uses.

Connectivity Index

Connectivity refers to the directness of going from one point to another (Mantri, 2008).

Understandably, walking or biking in an area where there are minimal connections can be

extremely tedious, unnerving, and uninviting. Thus, the connectivity in a spatial region is

instrumental to walking. If connectivity is high in a spatial location, it creates more direct and

accessible links between two points in the city. The level of connectivity in an area determines

travel distance, and the availability of options to a location. The level of connectivity in an area

is determined through the links and nodes present in the location.

One of the ways of estimating the connectivity in area is through the gamma index.

Gamma index can be defined as the proportion of links to the maximum possible links between

nodes in the area (Dill, 2004).

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑠

Gamma index =
𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑠
 30

Where, Max number of links between existing nodes = 3*(Number of nodes – 2)

The gamma index measures are usually between 0-1, where a greater number indicate a

higher connectivity index in the area (Gori, Nigro, & Petrelli, 2014).

Link is the pathway between two nodes, from one intersection to another or from one

intersection to a dead-end in a lane segment.

Node is the endpoint of a link, from a dangling or a straight end of a link. A node can also

be at the dangling end of a link or at the center and joint of a long line of links, where streets or

pathways meet.

Figure 11: Street Links and Nodes

 31

Density

Density encompasses the number of households’ inhabitation to the residential area in a

location. The density of housing has greater impact on the proportion of walking trips (Lo,

2009). Density in an area can influence the number of trips or the average automobile mileage

over time in an area. Thus, higher-density areas encourage variety of retail and service, resulting

in shorter, walkable distances between facilities (Leslie, Cerin, duToit, Owen, & Bauman, 2007).

Net Household Density is the proportion of total number of Households to land dedicated

to residential use in a neighborhood.

𝐷𝑖
Net Dwelling Unit = 𝑅𝐴𝑖

where, D is the dwelling count, RA is the residential area. The residential density can be

classified into 4 categories using the classification by Mantri (2008).

Table 2: Density Measure and Category

Measure Category

More than 20 households per acre High Density

15 to 20 Households per acre Moderate Density

10 to 15 Households per acre Low Density

Less than 10 Households per acre Sprawl

Proximity

Proximity is how different land uses are in relation to others. How land use is situated

from activity centers affect travel behavior, and greatly influence how walkable a place can be.

Proximity defines the average distances a person uses to access respective destinations from

origin in a location. It also affects the conduciveness of a place to walking, and one of the very

critical dimensions to determine the walkability of an area (Mantri, 2008).

 32

Ideally, there should be several necessary activities that should be within a walkable

distance to different age groups in a neighborhood. Proximity for this study can be defined as the

shortest possible walking distance using an ideal pathway available. Proximity can be classified

into the following ranks, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Proximity Matrix

Distance Rank

Less than 0.25 Miles Highly walkable

0.25 – 0.50 Miles Walkable

0.50 – 0.75 Miles Medium walkable

0.75 – 1.5 Miles Low walkable

More than 1.5 Miles Not walkable

In summary, to ease the measurement of the various indices of the dimension of

walkability, there is the need to adopt a standard formula for estimation. The dimensions were

assessed using the respective formula to ascertain the overall index of walkability. Table 4

depicts the dimensions with the identified principle to measure the index of walkability.

Table 4: Dimensions of walkability and their Formula

Dimension Measuring Principle

Connectivity Gamma Index

Proximity Network Analyst

Land Use Mix Entropy Index

Residential Density Net Dwelling Density

The calculation of the entropy index was done with a Python script. The results derived

was reclassified and summed to get the overall walkability index. Additionally, the result of the
 33

measure was compared to the already existing walk score from walkscore.com to interpret how

well it matches. Data collected in measuring the index is depicted in the Table 5.

Streetscape Evaluation using GSV

To measure physical features of the downtown, Google Sheets was used to prepare a

questionnaire (see Appendix B) to help with the streetscapes’ evaluation in GSV. The

questionnaire involves specific queries that probe into how to evaluate streetscapes in downtown.

Thus, the urban design qualities are accessed through using Google imagery to evaluate physical

features that is related to walking in the location. Details that relate to comfort, aesthetics,

linkage, coherence, human scale, safety etc. from urban design literature, are assessed through

visual assessments facilitated by GSV. Figure 12 below displays where streetscape features were

examined using GSV.

 34

Figure 12: Locations where Streetscapes were Examined using GSV

 35

Table 5: Spatial Data Used in Case Study

Data Type Source

Parcels Polygon shapefile Dallas County

Residential Facilities Point shapefile City of Adel

Commercial Facilities Point shapefile City of Adel

Recreational Facilities Point shapefile City of Adel

Public Facilities Point shapefile City of Adel

Sidewalks Image Google Street view

Landscape features Image Google Street view

Signage Image Google Street view

 36

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS

The data analysis included the measurement of the level of connectivity, proximity of

various land uses, land use mix and residential/dwelling density for both the current and

proposed future land use of the downtown. The same calculations for the four dimensions of the

walkability index of the downtown was done for both current and future land uses.

Measuring the Connectivity Index

The connectivity index in the area was calculated using the gamma index calculation. The

process involves counting the actual number of links intersecting or inside the boundary of

downtown. The street nodes connecting the links are also counted and inserted in the gamma index

formula:

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑠

Gamma index =
3∗(𝐷𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝑁𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑠−2)

50
=
3∗(35−2)

Therefore, the connectivity score was 0.505, for both land use maps since I assumed the

level of connectivity would not change for the future land use in downtown.

Assessing Proximity of Land Uses

Network Analysis extension of ArcGIS was used to facilitate calculating proximity to

various land use activity locations (attraction destinations from household locations) in both

current and future land use in the study area. Calculating the proximity dimension of walkability

index required getting nearest distances and average distances from trip origins (households’

locations) to destinations (activity locations) for the study area. Signing into ArcGIS online

account was pivotal, as it served as the network dataset input to get options like Walk Time and
 37

Walk Distances under the type of Mode. Units like kilometer and minutes, which may otherwise

not be supported by personally creating a network dataset before performing the network

analysis, were accessible from signing into ArcGIS online.

Measuring closest facilities (Current Land Use)

The calculation of the closest facilities was facilitated by using the “Closest Facility”

function under Network Analyst. All parcels in the study area were converted to points, and

residential lots were used as points of trip generation. All the other identified land uses

(commercial, industrial, Office, and Public spaces) were converted to activity locations (see

figure 13). A total of 54 residential parcels (point of origin) and 108 points of activity centers

(Destinations) were identified for the current land use map in the downtown. Closest facility

distances were automatedly calculated in the GIS environment, as routes.

 38

Figure 13: Network Analysis (Current Land Use)

The nearest distance was measured from residential parcels to activity centers in the

study area. The distance from one residential parcel in downtown to one activity center, say a

commercial parcel, was calculated, and the same process repeated for each residential parcel to

all other respective activity centers in the downtown. The nearest distances and walk times for all

activity centers were totaled, and the average of the distances was calculated from the respective

totals. Table 6 shows the average distances and average walk time from residential lots to all

destinations. 370 meters (0.23 miles) was computed as the average distance from origins to

destinations in downtown. Consequently, residents will have to walk an average of 4.30 minutes

to access respective locations in the area.

 39

Table 6: Distances to Activity Centers (Current Land Use)

Measuring closest facilities (Future Land Use)

The future land use map had a total of 118 (point of origins) and 120 points of activity

centers (Destinations) was identified for the current land use map in the downtown. There are

more points for origins and destinations because parcel locations for mixed uses delineated in the

future Land use plan double counted for both residential land use and other attraction centers in

the area. Figure 14 shows more points as origins compared to activity centers, because points for

these activity centers are hidden below the origins.

Table 7 shows the total average distances to respective activity centers. 363 meters (0.226

miles) was computed as the average distance from origins to destinations in downtown for the

future land use. Consequently, residents will have to walk an average of 4.25 minutes to access

respective locations in the area in the future.

 40

Figure 14: Network Analyst (Future Land Use)

Table 7: Distances to Activity Centers (Future Land Use)

Land Use Mix

Calculating land use mix was done using the entropy index. It essential to calculate the

individual land use percentages, for current and future land uses as shown in Table 8, before the

calculation of the entropy index. The individual land use percentages for both future and current

land use are calculated using the formula:

 41

𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑦 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠)

Land use percentage = * 100
𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑦 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠)

Table 8: Land Use Percentages in Downtown

After the calculation of land use percentages, the entropy index is calculated using a

Python script. The script was constructed to calculate the entropy index individually for the

current and future land use of the downtown.

Measuring the Residential Density

The final measure in the walkability index was calculating the residential density in the

downtown using the formula for net residential density. The values for residential household

count and residential area are very paramount to the calculation of the index. Since the area is

very small, a subset of the census block group, the calculation of the index was carried out using

an assumption for values of household number. The total household number was measured with

a critical look at the residential and mixed land use in downtown, assuming homogenous

population distribution.
 42

Land use delineated as residential-single family dwelling unit was deemed to have a

single household size, residential-medium density as having 6 household sizes and 9 households

for residential-heavy density (Municipal Code, 2019). The density score for respective land use

maps (Current and Future) were calculated using the dwelling density formula, which is the

proportion of household number to the total area of the land area for the area.

Current Land use = (57/11.21) = 5.08

Future Land Use = (242/21.31) = 11.36

Reclassification of Values of the Dimensions

The different values or scores from the four dimensions of walkability (connectivity,

proximity, land use mix and residential density) are reclassified into values from 0-100. The

scores of connectivity and land use mix which ranged between 0-10, were both reclassified to 0-

100. The proximity score was reclassified using the table 9 below.

The density score which ranges between 0-30 was reclassified into 0-100, using the table

9 below. The reclassification was done to get the same range for all the indices to facilitate

summing up and averaging for the walkability index.

Table 9: Classification Matrix

Proximity Distance Residential Density Score

Less than 0.25 Miles More than 20 households 100

0.25 – 0.50 Miles 15 to 20 households 75

0.50 – 0.75 Miles 10-15 households 50

0.75 – 1.5 Miles 5-10 households 25

More than 1.5 Miles Less than 5 households 0

 43

Creating the Walkability Index

The walkability index is calculated by using the above derived data from the four

dimensions. The ranges were further summed and averaged to get the overall walkability index

for the area. Figure 15 shows the final indices for the dimensions for the current and future land

use, reclassified to be between the range of 0-100. The average of the final scores for the land

uses gives the final index of walkability for the downtown.

Figure 15: Walkability Index for Downtown Adel

The connectivity for both land uses had the same value of 50.50 on the scale of 0-100.

The proximity of various land uses after reclassification, were also scored at 100.00 for both

land-use maps as they fell in the categorization of very accessible in the proximity

reclassification matrix. The Land use mix score for the current land use is 87.00 and 91.00 for

the future land use. Finally, the density score is 25 for the current land use and 50 for the future
 44

land use. Consequently, the overall walkability index, is 65.63 and 72.88 for the current and

future land use, respectively.

Comparing Walkability Indices for Downtown Adel

Looking at the indices for the dimensions individually, connectivity and proximity for

both land uses can be expected to remain the same, thus land uses will have the same level of

accessibility for the future. Nonetheless, Land use mix will increase for the future land use, as

more residential prospects will be made accessible in the downtown. The future land use will

increase the residential density, as more households will be provided with housing opportunities

to live in downtown.

As shown in Table 10, the overall walkability score falls within somewhat walkable for

the current land use. Clearly, the blend of more residential land use opportunities in the future

land use will also increase the walkability index to a high walkable downtown. Meaning more

errands will be able to be performed with walking and thus more physical activity in the

downtown environment. Adopting the future land use will improve opportunities for walking in

the downtown of Adel. Local businesses will benefit from the development of more residential

uses, as more people will live near to patronize businesses in downtown.

Hence, it can be concluded that adopting the future land use will increase prospects of

walking for residents in downtown of Adel. Thus, the index can be a beneficial tool for local

authorities in measuring walkability and finding ways of improving walking in their respective

settings.
 45

Table 10: Walkability Matrix

Walkability Score Description

91-100 Very High (Very Walkable)

70-89 High (Walkable)

50-69 Medium (Somewhat Walkable)

25-49 Low (Car Dependent)

0-24 Very Low (Car Dependent)

The study also measured the connectivity index to assess the difference it would make

in the walkability index if alleyways proposed in the downtown were developed. Measuring the

level of connectivity is conducted to ascertain the walking prospects for downtown when the

alleyways are developed and beautified as stipulated in the downtown Master Plan.

Below is the connectivity index that is derived and improvements to the walkability

index. Figure 16 shows a notable increase of the walkability index from 72.9 to 74.9. As the

alley way beautification improves the connection in downtown, the level of walkability will

consequently increase.

72
Connectivity Index =
3∗(43−2)

Score is 0.585
 46

Figure 16: Walkability Index with Alleyway Beautification Incorporated

Google Street View (GSV) Measures

The measures included evaluating specific physical features that tie with urban design

features, like human scale, legibility, complexity, linkage, coherence and imageability, among

others. To measure the physical features of the streetscape, all streets in the downtown was

analyzed using the same 16 questions in Google Sheets, with some of the questions posed as a

multi-grid question (see Appendix B). Each street intersection to another was evaluated using the

whole 16 questions. In total, 46 questionnaires were administered in the downtown to assessed

urban design qualities.

Sidewalks were generally available throughout downtown, with majority (80% of all

sidewalks in the location) of having over 75% smooth surface. Depicting a considerably degree
 47

of linkage in the downtown of Adel. Sidewalks were classified into well maintained,

moderately maintained, poorly maintained using the classification identified in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Sidewalk Classification Criteria

The sidewalks were all paved with concrete, with fewer cracks with no potholes

(about 30% of sidewalks had cracks). More than half of all sidewalks were averagely maintained

(57%; see Figure 18). Notably, the 28% of sidewalks which were well maintained were found

around the Dallas County Court House

 48

Figure 18: What are the conditions of the sidewalk from the observed location?

Only 15% of the sidewalks were identified to fit two people from respective observed

locations. Most sidewalks linking the various activity centers in the downtown could enable only

a person to walk at a time. Thus, it will be inconvenient for two persons to by-pass each other on

the sidewalk.

Figure 19: Can Two People Fit on the Sidewalk from the Observed Location?

Pedestrian crossings, which ensures a degree of ownership over the streets people walk

were generally absent from downtown. After the streetscape assessments, 37% of the streets had

some form of pedestrian crossing. However, the design of these crossings was not sharp enough
 49

nor did it have crosswalk signals to project the streets as opportunities to walking, over other

modes of transportation.

Figure 20: Is Pedestrian Crossing available at the Observed Location?

About 52% of streetscape features portrayed support for walking pleasure on one side of

the street. Pedestrian signs to inform road users of the priority of pedestrian’s safety and

convenience over all other modes of transportation were present on neither side of the streets in

the downtown. Street planters and furniture, which promotes the human scale urban design

quality were absent on neither side of streets. Street furniture were found only in 10% of streets,

and on just a side of a specific street. Small planters were identified on sections of street

intersections on Nile Kinnick Avenue and Main Street. Trees, on the other side, were found

around 52% on both sides of streets in downtown, with 41% of streets having trees on one side

of it.
 50

Figure 21: Streetscape Features in Downtown

Figure 22 depicts the examples of streetscape features that the study sought to identify at

observing locations using the GSV. All streetscape images represented (in Figure 22) were seen

in downtown, except for pedestrian signage. The Pedestrian signage in Figure 22 represents an

ideal road usage symbol that should be incorporated in downtown to ensure a convenient

walking opportunity and safe way of accessing sidewalks for pedestrians.

 51

Figure 22: Examples of Streetscape Features

Additionally, the streets landscape appeared 41% well maintained and 44% averagely

maintained if they were present at the observed location. 11% of the evaluated streets had no

form of landscape, like lawns around sidewalks, trees canopies, small planters, small trees etc.

available at respective assessed locations.

 52

Figure 23: Condition of Street Landscape

The design and appearance of buildings has influence on a neighborhood’s friendliness to

walking. Buildings in downtown in general are moderately well-kept (over 80% of residential

buildings in downtown) when they are present at streets. Commercial and industrial structures

were impressively well-kept in downtown. The façade of commercial buildings and recreational

facilities are well-kept to attract patronage.

 53

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION

This section will discuss the recommendations, limitations of the study, and lastly, the

conclusions of the study.

Recommendations

The Adel Downtown Plan 2020-2040, which improves housing opportunities, will ensure

more walkable neighborhoods. Additionally, the alley beautification plan (see Adel Downtown

Plan) will ensure increased connectivity. The city can therefore focus on completion of these

alleyway beautification plan stipulated in the Downtown Master plan, and at the same time

increase the number of linkages in the location.

Pedestrian signages and urban street elements that stimulate pleasure for walking must be

ensured in downtown to increase imageability and the extent of human scale in the urban

streetscapes. Signages can add to the visual interests, create a sense of place, and makes public

places like the public library and Dallas County Courthouse, more inviting. Installation of more

street furniture and small planters must be ensured in downtown, as it also enhances the

perception of human scale.

There is also a need to provide adequate spaces for pedestrians. Satisfactory protection of

pedestrians will encourage residents to walk more in the built environment. The study illustrates

the influence that the built environment characteristics has on walking. Improving infrastructure

that prioritize pedestrians over automobiles will increase the level of walking in the area and

creating a safe built environment for pedestrians should be a top priority.

Therefore, there should be a collaborative effort to expand sidewalk width all around

downtown. Sidewalk expansion will increase human scale intensity and promote opportunities

for walking in downtown Adel. Maintenance practice for sidewalks in downtown should be
 54

prioritized and kept at a high standard thoroughly. Figure 24 suggests locations in downtown that

can have sidewalk width increased and have prominent crosswalk designs for pedestrians. The

crosswalks can feature crosswalk signs that informs other road users of the opportunities

specifically created for pedestrians in downtown.

Figure 24: Potential for Sidewalk Width Expansion and Crosswalk Development

Street trees should be optimized through intense planting and maintenance. Rows of trees

on both of streets can also humanize the streets and create a perceived impression of comfort

when walking. Street trees must also be properly spaced to provide a sense of enclosure and

safety for pedestrians.

 55

Additionally, the dimensions need to be individually considered and critically studied to

decipher the appropriate means of boosting their values for the built environment. Though the

future land use plan has an increase in the walkability index there is still room for improving

walkability in Downtown Adel. The good news is that the future land use (see Appendix A) of

blocks adjacent to the downtown boundary have some variety on land use types, which will

increase walkability.

Limitations of the Study

Though walkability is, the study faced challenges. The household number for the

delineated downtown boundary was not possible to acquire because the downtown was a small

area inside the census block group for the city of Adel. It is imperative to consider the

neighborhood size and availability of population data to facilitate an accurate estimate of the

density index. Additionally, the Google Street View images used for streetscape assessment had

inconsistency in imagery dates. GSV imagery were dated in 2009, 2011 and 2018, with 63% of

streetscapes assessed dated in 2011. However, the results revealed that assessing streetscapes

using GSV remains a reliable virtual audit.

Final Remarks

The walkability index provides insight into the factors that encourage a pedestrian

friendly downtown. Altering the components provides a significant opportunity to develop

centers that favor the right connectivity and accessibility to promote both physical activity and

healthy lifestyles. There exist disparities in measures of walkability by researchers over the years

and researching and finding the best measures for walkability is a way of mitigating the health

and environmental unfortunate circumstances that befall urban centers.

Hence, the walkability evaluation of a neighborhood requires the requisite analysis of the

attributes of the built environment in respective neighborhoods. The study assessed

 56

characteristics of the urban environment that influence walkability in downtown Adel for both

current and future land uses. According to the values of the determined dimensions and analysis,

the overall walking for the downtown can be considerably improved in the future land use, if it is

developed per the proposed elements outlined in the plan.

The results of the study can be a suitable guide for policy makers and urban planners to

increase the walkability of their downtown or respective neighborhoods. Evaluating walkability

of an area can be a very pivotal point in the stages of planning. The results of such an endeavor,

whether the assessment results in a higher or otherwise value of the index, can facilitate further

planning of the area. Mostly, higher walkability index means a proper arrangement of the city to

support pedestrians in the urban fabric such that daily errands do not require the use of an

automobile. Contrarily, low walkability means there is automobile dependency and almost all

errands in the built environment requires the use of an automobile. Hence, encouraging

minimum physical activity and questionable health standards as residents have nowhere to walk.

The study has shown clearly that assessment of walkability standards can be performed

on both existing built urban environment and proposed land use plans for a neighborhood.

Subsequently, the study presents prospect for urban planners and policy makers to assess

proposed plans to know whether their plans support daily errands carried out by walking without

much reliance on cars. The prospect can also influence urban policy makers and planners to

adequately support efforts to increase diversity, connectivity, density, and proximity of various

land uses to support pedestrians’ convenience and safety.

Urban planners should endeavor to find a sustainable solution to achieve the probability

of having the shortest distance between trip origins and destinations. The prospect of optimal

social cohesion and healthy lifestyles should be a focus in designing urban centers by urban
 57

planners. Prudent arrangement of land uses like residential districts, recreational centers,

businesses, commercial areas, etc. is then vital for the urban environment and urban life forms.

One way to assure urban planners are sticking to this metric rule is to measure how walkable our

built environments are, and to find appropriate solutions to remedy the issues.
 58

REFERENCES

Ackerson, K. J. (2005). A GIS Approach to Evaluating Streetscape and Neighborhood

Walkability. University of Oregon. Electronic Thesis or Dissertation.
Adkins, A., Makarewicz, C., Scanze, M., Ingram, M., & Luhr, G. (2017). Contextualizing
Walkability: Do Relationships Between Built Environments and Walking Vary by
Socioeconomic Context? Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(3), 296-314.
doi:10.1080/01944363.2017.1322527
Badland, H. M., Opit, S., Witten, K., Kearns, R. A., & Suzanne , M. (2010). Can Virtual
Streetscape Audits Reliably Replace Physical Streetscape Audits? Journal of Urban
Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 87(6), 1007-1016.
doi:10.1007/s11524-010-9505-x
Badland, H., Mavoa, S., Boulangé, C., Eagleson, S., Gunn, L., Stewart, J., . . . Giles-Corti, B.
(2017). Identifying, creating, and testing urban planning measures for transport walking:
Findings from the Australian national liveability study. Journal of Transport & Health,
151-162. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2016.08.010
Benfield, K. (2012). Can We Quantify a Good Walk? Retrieved from CityLab:
https://www.citylab.com/design/2012/07/can-we-quantify-good-walk/2755/
Bhadra, S., Sazid, A., & Esraz-Ul-Zannat , M. (2015). An objective assessment of walkability in
Khulna City: A GIS based approach. 3rd International Conference on Green Energy and
Technology (ICGET) (pp. 1-5). Dhaka: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICGET.2015.7315092
Cao, X. J., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2009). The relationship between the built
environment and nonwork travel:. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
43(5), 548-559. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2009.02.001
City of Adel. (2019). Envision Adel 2040: Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved from adeliowa:
https://adeliowa.org/envision-adel-2040/
Clarke, P., Ailshire, J., Melendez, R., Bader, M., & Morenoff, J. (2010). Using Google Earth to
Conduct a Neighborhood Audit: Reliability of a Virtual Audit Instrument. Health Place,
16(6), 1224–1229. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.08.007
Dill, J. (2004). Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking. TRB Annual
Meeting CD-ROM, (pp. 1-20). Portland.
Dill, J., Mohr, C., & Ma, L. (2014). How Can Psychological Theory Help Cities Increase
Walking and Bicycling? Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(1), 36-51.
doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.934651
Dobesova, Z., & Krivka, T. (2012). Walkability index in the urban planning: A case study in
Olomouc city. In B. Juroslav (Ed.), Advances in Spatial Planning (pp. 179-196).
Olomouc city: InTech.
 59

Dörrzapf, L., Kovács-Győri, A., Resch, B., & Zeile, P. (2019). Defining and assessing
walkability: a concept for an integrated approach using surveys, biosensors and
geospatial analysis. Urban Development Issues, 62(1), 5-15. doi:10.2478/udi-2019-0008
Dovey, K., & Pafka, E. (2020). What is walkability? The urban DMA. Urban Studies, 57(1), 93-
108. doi:10.1177/0042098018819727
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 76(3), 265-294. doi:10.1080/01944361003766766
Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related
to Walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65-84. doi:10.1080/13574800802451155
Frank, L., Sallis, J., Saelens, B., Leary, L., Cain, K., Conway, T., & Hess , P. (2010). The
Development of a Walkability Index: Application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life
Study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(13), 924-933.
doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.058701
Gori, S., Nigro, M., & Petrelli, M. (2014). Walkability Indicators for Pedestrian-Friendly Design.
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2464(1), 38-45. doi:10.3141/2464-05
Horan, E., Yang, Y., & Eidt, T. (2015). Downtown Gresham Walkability Study. University of
Oregon. City of Gresham: Sustainable City Year Reports.
Hruby, A., & Hu, F. B. (2015). Epidemiology of Obesity: A Big Picture. Pharmacoeconomics,
33(7), 673-389. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0243-x
Kelly, P., Murphy, M., & Mutrie, N. (2017). The Health Benefits of Walking. In C. Mulley, K.
Gebel, & D. Ding (Eds.), Walking: Connecting Sustainable Transport with Health (Vol.
Transport and Sustainability). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Koohsari, M. J., Owen, N., Cerin, E., Giles-Corti, B., & Sugiyama, T. (2016). Walkability and
Walking for Transport: Characterizing the Built Environment Using Space Syntax.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 1-9.
doi:10.1186/s12966-016-0448-9
Leão, A. L., Abonizio, H. Q., Reis, R. S., & Kanashiro, M. (2020). Walkability Variables: An
Empirical Study in Rolândia - PR, Brazil. Associação Nacional de Tecnologia do
Ambiente Construído, 20(2), 475-488. doi:10.1590/s1678-86212020000200410
Lee, S., & Talen, E. (2014). Measuring Walkability: A Note on Auditing Methods. Journal of
Urban Design, 19(3), 368-388. doi:10.1080/13574809.2014.890040
Leslie, E., Butterworth, I., & Edwards , M. (2006). Measuring the walkability of local
communities using. Walk21-VII, “The Next Steps”. Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241592167
Leslie, E., Cerin, E., duToit, L., Owen, N., & Bauman, A. (2007). Objectively Assessing’
Walkability’ of Local Communities: Using GIS to Identify the Relevant Environmental
 60

Attributes. In P. Lai , & A. Mak , GIS for Health and the Environment. Lecture Notes in
Geoinformation and Cartography (pp. 91-104). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Litman, T. A. (2018). Economic Value of Walkability. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Retrieved from https://www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf
Lo, R. H. (2009). Walkability: what is it? Journal of Urbanism, 2(2), 145-166.
doi:10.1080/17549170903092867
Mantri, A. (2008). A GIS Based Approach to Measure Walkability of a Neighborhood. Electronic
Thesis or Dissertation. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
New York State Department of Health. (2020). Obesity Prevention. Retrieved from Department
of Health: https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/obesity/
Rundle, A. G., Bader, M. D., Richards, C. A., Neckerman, K. M., & Teitler, J. O. (2011). Using
Google Street View to Audit Neighborhood Environments. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 40(1), 94-100. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.09.034
Rypkema, D. D. (2003). The Importance of Downtown in the 21st Century. American Planning
Association, 69(1), 9-15. doi:10.1080/01944360308976290
Singh, R. (2016). Factors affecting walkability of neighborhoods. Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 643 – 654.
Stockton, J., Duke-Williams, O., Stamatakis, E., Brunner, E. J., Mindell, J. S., & Shelton, N. J.
(2016). A Novel Walkability Index for London Predicts Walking Time in Adults.
Proceedings of the Universities' Transport Study Group: 48th Annual Conference (pp. 1-
12). Bristol, UK.: Universities' Transport Study Group.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (2010). The National Bicycling and Walking
Study: 15–Year Status Report. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation. Retrieved February 24, 2020, from
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/15-year_report.pdf
Tiran, J., Lakner, M., & Drobne, S. (2019). Modelling walking accessibility: A case study of
Ljubljana, Slovenia. Moravian Geographical Reports, 27(4), 194-206. doi:10.2478/mgr-
2019-0015
United Nations. (2019). Sustainable Development Goal 11. Retrieved from Sustainable
Development Goals: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11
United Nations. (2019). Sustainable Development Goal 3. Retrieved from Sustainable
Development Goals: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg3
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Smog, Soot, and Other Air Pollution
from Transportation. Retrieved from Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/smog-soot-and-
local-air-pollution
 61

US Census Bureau. (2019). ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates. Retrieved from United
States Census Bureau: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205-
Year%20Estimates%20Data%20Profiles&table=DP05&tid=ACSDP5Y2016.DP05&g=0
400000US19_1600000US1900505
Weinberger , R., & Sweet, M. N. (2012). Integrating Walkability into Planning Practice.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
2322(1), 20-30. doi:10.3141/2322-03
Wikipedia. (2020). Adel, Iowa. Retrieved from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adel,_Iowa
Williams, G. C., Borghese, M. M., & Janssen, I. (2018). Neighborhood Walkability and
Objectively Measured Active Transportation among 10–13 year olds. Journal of
Transport & Health, 8, 202-209. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2017.12.006
Zhang, X., & Mu, L. (2019). The perceived importance and objective measurement of
walkability in the built environment rating. Environment and Planning B: Urban
Analytics and City Science, 0(0), 1-17. doi:10.1177/23998083|9832305
 62

APPENDIX A. FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE CITY OF ADEL

Source: City of Adel Comprehensive Plan 2020-2040

 63

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASSESSING DOWNTOWN'S WALKABILITY

USING GSV

Walkability Survey
1. What is the street name at the observing location?

2. What is the observed latitude?

3. What is the observed longitude?

4. Date of imagery?

Example: January 7, 2019

5. How many lanes does the street have?

Mark only one oval.

1
2

3
4
Other:
 64

6. What are the conditions of the street from the observed location?

7. Are sidewalks visible from the observed location?

Mark only one oval.

Yes
No
8. What are the characteristics of the sidewalk from the observed location?
 65

9. What are the conditions of the sidewalk from the observed location?

Mark only one oval.

Well maintained averagely maintained

poorly maintained Other:

10. Can two people fit on the sidewalk from the observed location?

Mark only one oval.

Yes
No
11. Can a person easily ride a bike on the sidewalk?

Mark only one oval.

Yes
No
 66

12. Conditions of the properties?

13. Streetscape features at the observed location?

14. Is pedestrian crossing available at the observed location?

Mark only one oval.

 67

Yes
No

15. Is there street landscape available at the observed location?

Mark only one oval.

Yes
No
16. What is the condition of the street landscape at the observed location?

Mark only one oval.

Well maintained

averagely maintained

poorly maintained

Other:

Forms