Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online
Transportation at www.sciencedirect.com
Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 24 (2017) 523–530
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

rd rd
rd Conference on Sustainable Urban Mobility, 3 rd CSUM 2016, 26 – 27 May 2016, Volos, Greece
333rd Conferenceon
Conference onSustainable
Sustainable Urban 3 CSUM 2016, 26 –– 27
Urban Mobility, 3rd 27 May
May 2016,
2016,Volos,
Volos,Greece
Greece

What
What matters
matters when
when it
it comes
comes to
to “Walk
“Walk and
and the
the city”? Defining aa
city”? Defining
weighted GIS-based
weighted GIS-based walkability
walkability index.
index.
Alexandros
Alexandros Bartzokas
Bartzokas Tsiompras
Tsiomprasa*,
a
Yorgos N.
*, Yorgos N. Photis
Photisaa
a
a
School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zographou Campus, Athens 157 73, Greece
School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zographou Campus, Athens 157 73, Greece

Abstract
Abstract
Promotion of daily walking activity is the focal point of urban mobility in many cities, since it tackles issues that stem from the
Promotion of daily walking activity is the focal point of urban mobility in many cities, since it tackles issues that stem from the
proliferation of auto-dependent lifestyles. The idea of walkability can be defined as the extent to which the built environment
proliferation of auto-dependent lifestyles. The idea of walkability can be defined as the extent to which the built environment
supports and encourages safe, comfortable and interesting urban walking trips. Thus, walkability is a relative composite measure,
supports and encourages safe, comfortable and interesting urban walking trips. Thus, walkability is a relative composite measure,
which can be geovisualized by assessing both built environment characteristics that affect people’s travel behavior as well as
which can be geovisualized by assessing both built environment characteristics that affect people’s travel behavior as well as
information gathered through audits and surveys. To this end, our paper deals with the definition of a weighted GIS-based
information gathered through audits and surveys. To this end, our paper deals with the definition of a weighted GIS-based
composite walkability index methodology. During the first phase the following parameters formulate the initial value of our index:
composite walkability index methodology. During the first phase the following parameters formulate the initial value of our index:
population density, pathway network connectivity, land use mix and proximity to basic land uses. In the second phase, pathway
population density, pathway network connectivity, land use mix and proximity to basic land uses. In the second phase, pathway
characteristics such as its width, obstacles and condition, with problematic values negatively affect the index and reduce its value.
characteristics such as its width, obstacles and condition, with problematic values negatively affect the index and reduce its value.
Although the international debate in this scientific field has not yet concluded whether a walkability index should be weighted or
Although the international debate in this scientific field has not yet concluded whether a walkability index should be weighted or
not, we delve into the exploitation of the suitable index’s parameters weights. In our study, weights ensued from a Pan-Hellenic
not, we delve into the exploitation of the suitable index’s parameters weights. In our study, weights ensued from a Pan-Hellenic
electronic questionnaire survey constituting of a sample of 871 people mainly sought the hierarchical significance of e ach of the
electronic questionnaire survey constituting of a sample of 871 people mainly sought the hierarchical significance of e ach of the
walkability index’s parameters and sub-parameters according to the preferences of respondents which stated they basically choose
walkability index’s parameters and sub-parameters according to the preferences of respondents which stated they basically choose
walking/cycling to their daily destinations. Hierarchy analysis of results was carried out through the utilization of the Borda count
walking/cycling to their daily destinations. Hierarchy analysis of results was carried out through the utilization of the Borda count
election method, a consensus-based method instead of a majoritarian one. Results indicated that proximity to basic urban
election method, a consensus-based method instead of a majoritarian one. Results indicated that proximity to basic urban
destinations is assigned the highest weight with a value of 38.3% and population density the lowest with a value of 13.8%. Finally,
destinations is assigned the highest weight with a value of 38.3% and population density the lowest with a value of 13.8%. Finally,
pathways with small or zero width reduced the index’s initial value up to 41,1%.
pathways with small or zero width reduced the index’s initial value up to 41,1%.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
©© 2016
2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of
of the
the organizing
organizing committee
committee of
of the
the 3rd
3rd CSUM
CSUM 2016.
2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 3rd CSUM 2016.
Keywords: walkability; Borda count method; built environment; Greece; walking; pedestrians
Keywords: walkability; Borda count method; built environment; Greece; walking; pedestrians

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +306947775765

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +306947775765
E-mail address: abartzok@mail.ntua.gr, alexplandevel@gmail.com
E-mail address: abartzok@mail.ntua.gr, alexplandevel@gmail.com

2214-241X © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

2214-241X © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 3rd CSUM 2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 3rd CSUM 2016.

2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 3rd CSUM 2016.
10.1016/j.trpro.2017.06.001
524 Alexandros Bartzokas Tsiompras et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 24 (2017) 523–530
2 Bartzokas Tsiompras, A & Photis, Y.N. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

1. Introduction

Cities are facing serious environmental and public health challenges. On the one side it is the climate change and the
impacts stemming from car-dependent lifestyles such as air pollution and bad quality of life, but on the other hand,
the obesity and the overweight epidemic have not been managed effectively yet. Walking, as an environmental-
friendly and human powered transportation option seem to combat partially the effects of these challenges since it is
associated with many attributes of the built environment, especially land use patterns, and physical activity (Saelens
& Handy, 2008, Sallis et al, 2015). What is more, Sallis et al (2016) concluded that planning cities to be walkable are
a globally applicable solution to the pandemics of inactivity and non-communicable diseases such as heart disease,
diabetes, and some cancers. They have shown that adults (from 10 countries) who lived in walkable districts did up to
90 minutes more physical activity than those who lived in the least walkable districts (Sallis et al, 2016). Therefore,
walking seems to matter more in the fields of city and transport planning, as well as in public health management than
ever before, on account of being a fundamental element in the process of planning the sustainable and healthy city.
In this framework, walkability is a relative composite measure of the built environment and combines neighborhood
design attributes likely to reflect pedestrian-friendliness and ease of travel (Frank et al, 2010). The standard elements
of neighborhood walkability are street connectivity, land-use mix, proximity to destinations and population density
(Owen et al, 2007) and all of these attributes can be measured objectively and geovisualized in a Geographic
Information System (G.I.S). One of the first walkability measures, with environmental variables derived objectively
from GIS data, was presented by Frank et al (2005), as the sum of the z-scores of land-use mix (multiplied by 6), net
residential density and intersection density. However, five years later Frank et al (2010), represented their index as
the sum of z-scores of intersection density (multiplied by 2), residential density and the land-use mix. Leslie et al
(2007) developed a similar walkability index, also used by Owen et al (2007) and Wei et al (2016), which was the
sum of the z-scores of dwelling density, intersection density, land-use mix and net retail area ratio. Alternatively, the
trademarked industry of www.walkscore.com has used a method of summing the score of parameters such as
proximity to goods and services, population dynamics and intersections density and significantly has raised the
popularity of the term, basically in the USA and especially in the real estate sector. A plethora of other walkability
approaches has also been available on the internet lately, such as the State of Place™, Walkonomics.com,
WalkShed.org and so on, a trend that indicates the broad acceptance of this concept. Other researchers incorporate
several aspects of the urban design field in their walkability measures such as several physical features, urban design
qualities and perceptual qualities, which can be measured by audits or surveys, as well. For instance, Ewing &
Clemente (2013) in their book Measuring Urban Design: Metrics for Livable Places identified five urban design
qualities that have a relationship with the overall walkability score, such as imageability, enclosure, human scale,
transparency, and complexity.
Clearly, in the majority of the various walkability measures, all the included parameters are dealt almost equally, or
some of them have higher importance than other. Thus, there is a heated debate of whether these parameters should
be weighted or not. Knuiman et al (2014) suggested the examination of the relative importance of the walkability
components, since their results of their longitudinal study in Perth, Australia indicated that the traditional components
of walkability are not always equally important determinants of walking travel behavior. Therefore, the aim of this
study is to present a weighted approach of a GIS-based walkability index, adapted to the Greek urban environment
and either for utilitarian and recreational walking trips. The weights of the walkability index stemmed from a Pan-
Hellenic electronic questionnaire mainly sought the hierarchical significance of each of the walkability index’s
parameters and sub-parameters according to the preferences of respondents which stated they basically choose to walk
or cycle to their daily destinations. Finally, this study does not intend to present the most “suitable” approach for
walkability interpretation and analysis, but to shed some light in the discourse about the quantitative influence of some
attributes of the built environment against others on walking.
 Alexandros Bartzokas Tsiompras et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 24 (2017) 523–530 525
Bartzokas Tsiompras A. & Photis, Y.N. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 3

2. Defining the framework of the proposed weighted GIS-based walkability index methodology

We define the weighted GIS-based composite walkability index, as the weighted summary of GIS-derived sub-
indicators such as the proximity to basic urban destinations, the land-use mix, the intersections density and the
population density. However, the initial score of the index is reduced in areas where problematic characteristics of the
pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalk width, obstacles, condition) exist. In practice, the proposed methodology of the
weighted GIS-based walkability index consists of two separate phases. The first phase which involves the weighted
summary of the z-scores of four built environment parameters and the second phase, which negatively affects the
index and reduce its value. Although the spatial scale of the measurements in this walkability index is flexible enough
and depends on the available geodata, the city block level as a spatial unit should be preferred when it is implemented.

3. Analysis of the proposed weighted GIS-based walkability index parameters

3.1 Pathway Network Connectivity

Street connectivity, as a maker of pedestrian accessibility to destinations, systematically has been associated with
walking (Saelens et al, 2003) and has been used in many walkability measures (Frank et al, 2005, Frank et al, 2010,
Knuiman et al, 2014, Leslie et al, 2007, Wei et al, 2016), where often it is considered with a double weight (e.g Frank
et al, 2010). A high connectivity value indicates there are many route opportunities for traversing through a road
network, though this is only the case in a fine-grained road network (Cervero et al, 2009). The connectivity parameter
is calculated in many different ways (Ellis et al, 2016). The common method, however, is that of intersection density
where it measures only the nodes with more than 3 links per square kilometer. Frank et al (2005) in their study at
Atlanta, USA considered that areas with ≥30 intersections per square kilometer are more walkable than other areas.
However, Koohsari et al (2016) suggest for street connectivity in walkability measures the use of space syntax
concepts, i.e., street integration. Nevertheless, many researchers have criticized the usage of street network data in
walkability instead of the real pedestrian network (Chin et al, 2008, Ellis et al, 2016), given that street connectivity
represents the car-oriented accessibility in the area and not the real pedestrian movement. Recently, Ellis et al (2016)
in their study in Belfast, Ireland calculated the connectivity of the real pedestrian network by using six different
measures (i.e Intersection density, Link-node ration, Pedestrian route directness, Pedshed, Metric reach, Directional
reach) and then they validated them against actual physical activity behavior data. They suggest the usage of footpath
network data in walkability measures, and for connectivity analysis, they recommend the method of intersection
density or the metric reach since they found a stronger association with physical activity (Ellis et al, 2016).

3.2 Land Use Mix

The diversity of land-uses is a fundamental parameter of creating more walkable places for people to live in (Frank
and Pivo, 1994, King et al, 2015). According to Saelens et al (2003) the land use mix is the level of integration among
different land use types in an area, which means that the land use mix defines the spatial intensity of heterogeneous
land use types. In general, the idea of the land use mix in a walkability index is to emphasize the heterogeneity between
residential and non-residential land uses, as well as the spatial distribution of jobs and housing. Ding et al (2014) have
shown that higher densities of residential and employment land use near the city center can effectively reduce the
work-related car commutes. Although many studies have found positive relations between land use mix and walking
for transportation (Saelens and Handy, 2008), Sallis et al (2016) in a cross-sectional study of physical activity in 14
urban environments did not find any relation between mixed land use patterns and physical activity. However, the
land use mix is a stable measure in many walkability approaches (Frank et al, 2005, Leslie et al, 2007, Knuiman et al,
2014) but according to Christian et al (2011) the performance of land use mix depends highly on the types of trips and
study areas. For instance, Christian et al (2011) found that walking for transport had the strongest association with the
walkability index when the land use mix measure included the following land-use categories: residential, retail, office,
health, welfare and community, entertainment, culture, and recreation. On the contrary, walking for recreation was
more strongly associated with the walkability index when the land-use categories of the land use mix measure included
526 Alexandros Bartzokas Tsiompras et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 24 (2017) 523–530
4 Bartzokas Tsiompras, A & Photis, Y.N. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

the following: public open space, sports infrastructure, primary and rural land uses. Nevertheless, the general method
for the land use mix measure in walkability is the usage of an entropy equation, which results in a score of 0-1, with
0 representing homogeneity and 1 representing heterogeneity (Leslie et al, 2007, Frank et al, 2005, Frank and Pivo,
1994). In the literature, other researchers suggest for transport-related land use mix measurements the Herfindahl-
Hirschman (Forsyth et al, 2008) and the Dissimilarity Index (Cervero & Kockleman, 1997). On the other hand,
Manaugh and Kreider (2013), proposed a new measure of land use mix, namely the land use interaction method, which
accounts for the extent to which complementary land uses adjoin one another.

3.3 Proximity to Destinations

Walkable places are first of all places that support short walking trips to essential facilities and services for the daily
errands. To that end, proximity to basic destinations creates community livability, social welfare, and value. Besides,
many studies have shown that proximity to destinations supports active transport and mobility (Glazier et al, 2014,
Cerin et al, 2007, McCormack et al, 2008, Krizek & Johnson, 2006, King et al, 2015). For example, Krizek & Johnson
(2006) concluded that distances to retail and bicycle facilities are statistically important predictors of choosing active
modes of transport at close distances. Moreover, King et al (2015) found significant evidence about the importance of
destinations to promote walking and particularly destinations such as small food stores, community resources and
schools within 800m-1200m of home. McCormack et al (2008) have shown that the presence of convenience stores,
news agencies, and shopping centers were significant correlates of transport-related walking irrespective of network
buffer size they examined. In another study, Cerin et al (2007) found that proximity to the workplace (particularly in
women) and proximity to commercial destinations was positively associated with walking for transport, despite the
fact that certain types of retail destinations were more important than others (i.e food shops). Nevertheless, Sallis et
al (2016) concluded that physical activity was also associated with the number of nearby transport stops and not with
the distance to nearest transport stop, indicating that people might likely to walk further to get a transport stop when
they have more options available. Finally, in a USA study, Shigematsu et al (2009) have shown that proximity to non-
residential uses and recreation matters more for elderly than adults and young people when they choose to walk.

3.4 Population Density

Population density matters in many transport, city planning and physical activity studies (Saelens et al, 2003), as it is
a fundamental parameter for the formulation of the travel demand in a given region. The aggregation of people in
compact city forms also generates sustainable and livable places, provided that the transportation system is better
organized between residential and job places. However, Wojan & Hamrich (2015) in their US study found that
residents in compact developments and sprawling areas have almost similar physical activity levels, as only a small
number of people in both types of places elect walking or cycling to work. Additionally, Ewing and Cervero (2001)
pointed out that a pedestrian-friendly environment is not the same as a transit-friendly environment. They found that
transit use depends primarily on local activity densities (both residential and employment density) and secondarily on
the degree of land use mixing. However, walking depends as much on the degree of land use mixing as on local
densities, and this is why many walkability measures combine among other parameters both population density and
land use mix. In a Canadian study, Glazier et al (2014), examined the role of residential density, proximity to
destinations and walkability in transportation and health outcomes (e.g., obesity, overweight, diabetes, etc). They
concluded that residential density and the availability of walkable destinations had strong and consistent associations
with active mobility, overweight or obesity, and diabetes. They suggest that walkability could be measured using
either the walkable destinations or residential density (Glazier et al, 2014). Nonetheless, Forsyth et al (2007) in an
empirical US study, summed up that residential density is associated with the purpose of walking (travel, leisure) but
not with the amount of overall walking. They highlighted that higher densities alone, like other built environment
parameters, do not appear to be the silver bullet to increase physical activity and mitigate the obesity epidemic.

3.5 Problematic pathway characteristics

 Alexandros Bartzokas Tsiompras et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 24 (2017) 523–530 527
Bartzokas Tsiompras A. & Photis, Y.N. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 5

In terms of urban design, a walkable place is safe, comfortable, interesting and convivial (Ewing & Clemente, 2013).
The urban life in vital cities happens and evolves at the street level. Consequently, a walkable street should have
established the appropriate pedestrian infrastructure, i.e., sidewalks. Besides, Saelens et al (2008) have found that
walking is consistently correlated with the existence of sidewalks. In practice, a sidewalk, with sufficient width and if
it has been designed according to the pedestrian level of service, provides safety and convenience to the pedestrian.
In other words, if sidewalks are continuously present in a given area, it is also possible to exist there other auxiliary
infrastructure such us benches, signage, trees, lights, etc. which in turn support and encourage walking trips. Moreover,
Pikora et al (2006) found that a well-maintained walking surface was the main functional factor associated with
walking for recreation and transport, suggesting that walking near home is generated when neighborhoods provide
pedestrian facilities that are attractive, comfortable and they are surrounded by local destinations which matter.

4. Discovering the weights of a GIS-based walkability index: Results from the Pan-Hellenic questionnaire

The majority of composite walkability measures do not weight the parameters they use, or they weight some against
the others without a clear justification and analysis. Thus, the challenge for walkability analysis is whether the
involved attributes of the built environment have equal or different importance in the decision-making process of
individuals for their urban trips. In the present study, we will delve into the relative importance of the selected variables
of the proposed walkability index methodology by executing a web-based questionnaire survey. The questionnaire
sought the hierarchical significance of each of the walkability index’s parameters and sub-parameters according to the
preferences of respondents. The results will lead us to figure out what matters more or less in the process of walkability
analysis or/and planning. In January of 2013 a Pan-Hellenic web-questionnaire was carried out in a random sample
of 871 Greek people (Table 1), in which 56% of them was females and 44% males. More than half of the respondents
were in the age group between 15-24 years old, and the overwhelming majority stated that they are active commuters
(walking & cycling), although roughly three out of four does not own a car.

Table 1. Profile of survey respondents

Number Percentage
Gender Female 487 56,0%
Male 384 44,0%
Total 871 100%
Age groups 15 - 24 485 56,7%
25 - 34 249 29,6%
35 - 44 66 7,6%
45 - 54 48 5,5%
55 -64 20 2,3%
65+ 3 0,3%
Car owner Yes 217 24,9%
No 654 75,1%
Daily mode of urban Bicycle 68 7,8%
transportation Walking 291 33,4%
Public Transport 309 35,5%
Car/Motorcycle 203 23,3%

The results of all ranking questions were analyzed by using the Borda Count method, which is used for decision-
making and in many elections with proportional representation. Specifically, the Borda count method formulated in
1781 by the French scientist Jean-Charles de Borda and it is a single-winner election method in which voters rank
from highest to lowest multiple options or candidates in order of preference. This method is often referred as a
consensus-based voting system rather than a majoritarian one since it elects broadly acceptable options (Reilly, 2002).
In short, with Borda count method when there are n options, the scores for each option are calibrated as n minus 1
down to 0 (Reilly, 2002). The total preference scores for each candidate are added up, and the winner is the candidate
with the highest aggregate score.
528 Alexandros Bartzokas Tsiompras et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 24 (2017) 523–530
6 Bartzokas Tsiompras, A & Photis, Y.N. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

Table 2. The weights of walkability index parameters and sub-parameters, according to the survey’s findings
Parameters and Sub-Parameters (1st Phase) Percentage (%) Final Weight (%)
1.1 Pathway network connectivity (Intersections Density) 21,85 21,85
1.2 Proximity to destinations 38,31 38,31
1.2.1 Destinations regarding food shopping activities 30,77 *11,79
1.2.1.1 Super Market/Grocery Store 40,04 4,72
1.2.1.2 Baker's Shop 34,98 4,12
1.2.1.3 Greecgrocer's Shop 17,73 2,09
1.2.1.4 Butcher Shop 7,25 **0,85
1.2.2 Destinations regarding other daily shopping activities or services 21,83 8,36
1.2.2.1 Kiosk (Periptero in Greek) 52,11 4,36
1.2.2.2 Pharmacy 26,04 2,18
1.2.2.3 Bank 21,85 1,83
1.2.3 Destinations regarding recreation and leisure time 16,46 6,31
1.2.3.1 Café/Bar 28,3 1,79
1.2.3.2 Park/Square 27,2 1,72
1.2.3.3 Neigborhood's Sport Facilities 21,64 1,36
1.2.3.4 Private Gym 17,03 1,07
1.2.3.5 Church 5,83 0,37
1.2.4 Destinations regarding education 11,19 4,29
1.2.4.1 School 9,9 0,42
1.2.4.2 Private Education Centers 9,18 0,39
1.2.4.3 Nursery School 33,76 1,45
1.2.4.4 Library 44,4 1,9
1.2.4.5 University 2,74 0,12
1.2.5 Destinations regarding transportation (e.g Bus/Metro/Transit Stop or Station, Taxi) 19,74 7,56
1.3 Land Use Mix (Entropy Index) 26 26
1.4 Population Density 13,84 13,84
Total 100 100
2 Pathway negative characteristics (2nd Phase) Percentage (%) Final Weight (%)
2.1 Pathway with small or zero width -41,11 -41,11
2.2 Pathway in bad condition and poor surface quality -23,64 -23,64
2.3 Pathway with many obstacles on its surface -35,25 -35,25
*Destinations regarding food shopping activities final weight example: 11,79=(38,31 x 0,3077)
** Butcher Shop final weight example: 0,85=(11,79 x 0,0725)

The results of the survey indicate that proximity (up to 400m) to urban destinations accounts for more than 38% of
the total walkability score, an outcome that is very similar to the findings of Glazier et al (2014). Particularly, the land-
use mix, the pathway network connectivity, and population density are responsible for the 26%, 21,85% and 13,83%
respectively of the overall walkability result. Proximity to destinations in conjunction with the land-use mix seems to
be the fundamental keys for walkability since their total sum affects the 64% of the walkability score. However,
analyzing the importance of destination categories, we conclude that destinations regarding food shopping or other
shopping services matter more than recreation, education and transportation facilities since they make up roughly the
50% of the total score that proximity to destinations parameter gains. Furthermore, bus stops (or other transit
stop/station), supermarkets, bakeries, and kiosks play a significant role for walkability, as if we add up their weights,
their total importance on walkability is about 20,76%. Nevertheless, destination types like university, school, private
education center, church, and butcher shop seem not to affect the walkability score of a given area significantly,
provided that all of these attributes separately have a weight lower than 1% and particularly their weights are ranging
from 0,12% to 0,85%. Although, 56% of the sample was in the age group 15-24 years old, the relative importance of
some major education facilities such as school, university, and private education centers, was markedly low. A
plausible explanation might be that many youngsters prefer to travel to education facilities either by car (for example
accompanied by their parents or others) or by taking the public transit. Furthermore, it is also possible that young
people perceive the distance between their residence and education facilities to be more than a 400m walk. The
footpath network connectivity results for the 21,85% of the walkability score, while in other walkability measures
connectivity had a double weight among the other variables participating in the index (Frank et al, 2010). Population
density has the lowest weight among the other three parameters of the index with 13,84%. This fact signifies that in
walkability measures population density should be necessarily combined with other attributes of the built environment
 Alexandros Bartzokas Tsiompras et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 24 (2017) 523–530 529
Bartzokas Tsiompras A. & Photis, Y.N. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 7

as other studies have also shown (Forsyth et al, 2007). Finally, with regard to the pathway negative characteristics,
the small or zero width of the sidewalk had the higher importance with 41,11%. The existence of obstacles on the
sidewalk surface and sidewalks which are of poor surface quality can negatively influence the walkability score up to
35,2% and 23,6% respectively.

Drawing upon the results of the survey, the suggested mathematical equation for the proposed GIS-based walkability
index (W.I) is as follows:

W.I = {[0,22×Z-ScoreConnectivity]+[0,26×Z-ScoreLand-Use Mix]+[0,38×Z-ScoreProximity to Destinations]+[0,14×Z-ScorePopulation

Density]} - {0,1×[0,41×Z-Scorepathway width<1m ]+[0,24×Z-Scorepathway in bad condition ]+[0,35×Z-Scorepathway with obstacles]}

Where Ζ-ScoreConnectivity = Number of intersections with more than 3 links per sq.km
− ∑𝑘𝑘
𝑖𝑖=1[(𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖)×(𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 )]
Z-ScoreLand-Use Mix= 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
Where pi is the area of a particular land use category over the total area
k is the number of land use categories
Z-ScorePopulation Density= Number of inhabitants per sq.km
Z-ScoreProximity to Destinations = Weighted total sum of the number of destinations accessible within 400m distance
Z-Scorepathway width<1m = Percentage of pathways with a width smaller than 1m. per sq.km
Z-Scorepathway in bad condition = Percentage of pathways of poor surface condition per sq.km
Z-Scorepathway with obstacles = Percentage of pathways with obstacles on their surface per sq.km

5. Conclusion

Indeed, more than half of a walkability score is influenced substantially by the structure and distribution of the land
uses in the city. With the present study, we intended to set in a competition several common attributes of the built
urban environment related to walking so as to define what matters more or less in a walkability index. Concurrently,
we have laid out a mathematical equation for a GIS-based weighted walkability index that is ready to be empirically
verified in the Greek urban setting or elsewhere, although some limitations exist. We concluded that proximity to
transportation facilities and commercial destinations are the most important sub-parameters which underpin the
walkability level in a neighborhood significantly. Nevertheless, if we aim to plan a high walkable urban district the
diversity of land uses is a prerequisite. On the other hand, our approach reconsiders the initial walkability score with
regard to the existing pedestrian infrastructure, and our findings suggest that sidewalks with small width, as long as
sidewalks with obstacles on their surface discourage the pedestrian to walk comfortably and they are appropriate
factors to limit the range of the final walkability score. However, the presented walkability index is flexible enough,
since it can be used without the second phase of subtractive calculations or with a different set of destinations and
according to the special conditions a region or a country presents. For example, kiosks or private education centers
are a common destination in the Greek urban reality, but in another country, these destinations might not be significant
enough. Thus, the 5 general destination categories could be reshaped according to the researcher interests, although
the weights of these categories might be necessary for other countries as well. To conclude, this work did not aim to
present the most suitable mix of walkability factors but hoped to expand the discussion over a heated theme for urban
and transport planning and which is pretty underestimated during the urban mobility planning process in Greece.
Researchers and practitioners, thus, could test the presented methodology in order for them to find out interesting
associations with transport, economic, environmental, social and health-related phenomena. Therefore, cities
capitalizing on the results of a walkability analysis will be inspired to reconstruct their streets and public spaces
creatively and leading the way towards a sustainable and walking world.

References
Cerin, E., Leslie, E., Toit, L.d., Owen, N., Frank, L.D., 2007, Destinations that matter: Associations with walking for transport, Health and Place,
13 (3), pp. 713-724
Cervero, R., Kockelman, K., 1997, Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 2 (3), pp. 199-219
530 Alexandros Bartzokas Tsiompras et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 24 (2017) 523–530
8 Bartzokas Tsiompras, A & Photis, Y.N. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

Cervero, R., Sarmiento, O.L., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L.F., Neiman, A., 2009, Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: Lessons from
Bogotá, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 3 (4), pp. 203-226
Chin, G.K.W., Van Niel, K.P., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M., 2008, Accessibility and connectivity in physical activity studies: The impact of
missing pedestrian data, Preventive Medicine, 46 (1), pp. 41-45
Christian, H.E., Bull, F.C., Middleton, N.J., Knuiman, M.W., Divitini, M.L., Hooper, P., Amarasinghe, A., Giles-Corti, B., 2011, How important
is the land use mix measure in understanding walking behaviour? Results from the RESIDE study, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition
and Physical Activity, 8, art. no. 55
Ding, C., Wang, Y., Xie, B., Liu, C., 2014, Understanding the role of built environment in reducing vehicle miles traveled ac counting for spatial
heterogeneity, Sustainability (Switzerland), 6 (2), pp. 589-601
Ellis, G., Hunter, R., Tully, M.A., Donnelly, M., Kelleher, L., Kee, F., 2016, Connectivity and physical activity: using footpath networks to measure
the walkability of built environments, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43 (1), pp. 130-151
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R., 2001, Travel and the built environment. Transportation Research Record, 1780, 87–114
Ewing, R., & Clemente, O., 2013, Measuring Urban Design: Metrics for Livable Places, Island Press
Forsyth, A., Oakes, J.M., Schmitz, K.H., Hearst, M., 2007, Does residential density increase walking and other physical activity?, Urban Studies,
44 (4), pp. 679-697
Frank, L.D., Pivo, G., 1994, Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and
Walking, Transportation Research Record, 1466, pp.44-52
Frank, L.D., Schmid, T.L., Sallis, J.F., Chapman, J., Saelens, B.E., 2005, Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively
measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28 (2 SUPPL. 2), pp. 117-125
Frank, L.D., Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E., Leary, L., Cain, L., Conway, T.L., Hess, P.M., 2010, The development of a walkability index: Application
to the neighborhood quality of life study, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44 (13), pp. 924-933
Glazier, R.H., Creatore, M.I., Weyman, J.T., Fazli, G., Matheson, F.I., Gozdyra, P., Moineddin, R., Shriqui, V.K., Booth, G.L., 2014, Density,
destinations or both? A comparison of measures of walkability in relation to transportation behaviors, obesity and diabetes in Toronto, Canada,
PLoS ONE, 9 (1), art. no. e85295
King, T.L., Bentley, R.J., Thornton, L.E., Kavanagh, A.M., 2015, Does the presence and mix of destinations influence walking and physical
activity?, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12 (1), art. no. 115
Knuiman, M.W., Christian, H.E., Divitini, M.L., Foster, S.A., Bull, F.C., Badland, H.M., Giles-Corti, B.,2014, A longitudinal analysis of the
influence of the neighborhood built environment on walking for transportation: The RESIDE study, American Journal of Epidemiology, 180
(5), pp. 453-461
Koohsari, M., J., Sugiyama, T., Mavoa, S., Villanueva, K., Badland, H., Giles-Corti, B., Owen, N., 2016, Street network measures and adults'
walking for transport: Application of space syntax, Health & Place, 38, pp. 89-95
Krizek, K.J., Johnson, P.J., 2006, Proximity to trails and retail: Effects on urban cycling and walking, Journal of the American Planning Association,
72 (1), pp. 33-42
Leslie, E., Saelens, B., Frank, L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Coffee, N., Hugo, G., 2005, Residents' perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively
different neighbourhoods: A pilot study, Health and Place, 11 (3), pp. 227-236
Manaugh, K., Kreider, T., 2013, What is mixed use? Presenting an interaction method for measuring land use mix, Journal of Transport and Land
Use, 6 (1), pp. 63-72.
McCormack, G.R., Giles-Corti, B., Bulsara, M., 2008, The relationship between destination proximity, destination mix and physical activity
behaviors, Preventive Medicine, 46 (1), pp. 33-40
Owen, N., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., duToit, L., Coffee, N., Frank, L.D., Bauman, A.E., Hugo, G., Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., 2007, Neighborhood
Walkability and the Walking Behavior of Australian Adults, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33 (5), pp. 387-395
Pikora, T.J., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M.W., Bull, F.C., Jamrozik, K., Donovan, R.J., 2006, Neighborhood environmental factors correlated with
walking near home: Using SPACES, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38 (4), pp. 708-714
Reilly, B., 2002, Social choice in the south seas: Electoral innovation and the Borda count in the Pacific Island countries, International Political
Science Review, 23 (4), pp. 355-372+467
Saelens, B., Sallis, J., Frank, D., 2003, Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and
planning literature, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2): 80–91
Saelens, B.E., Handy, S.L., 2008. Built environment correlates of walking: A review, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40 (7 SUPPL.1),
pp.S550-S566
Sallis, J.F., Spoon, C., Cavill, N., Engelberg, J.K., Gebel, K., Parker, M., Thornton, C.M., Lou, D., Wilson, A.L., Cutter, C.L., Ding, D., 2015, Co-
benefits of designing communities for active living: An exploration of literature, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical
Activity, pp. 1-10. Article in Press
Sallis, J.F., Cerin, E., Conway, T.L., Adams, M.A., Frank, L.D., Pratt, M., Salvo, D., Schipperijn, J., Smith, G., Cain, K.L. , Davey, R., Kerr, J., Lai,
P.C., Reis, J.M.R, Sarmiento, O.L., Schofield, G., Troelsen, J., Van Dyck, D., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Owen, N., 2016, Physical activity in
relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: a cross-sectional study, The Lancet, Article in Press
Shigematsu, R., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L., Saelens, B.E., Frank, L.D., Cain, K.L., Chapman, J.E., King, A.C., 2009, Age differences in the relation
of perceived neighborhood environment to walking, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41 (2), pp. 314-321
Wojan, T.R., Hamrick, K.S. (2015), Can walking or biking to walk really make a difference? Compact development, observed commuter choice
and body mass index, PLoS ONE, 10(7), art. no. e0130903
Wei, Y.D., Xiao, W., Wen, M., Wei, R., 2016, Walkability, land use and physical activity, Sustainability (Switzerland), 8 (1), pp. 1-16.