Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100710

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/transportation-
research-interdisciplinary-perspectives

Living in a Silver Zone: Residents’ perceptions of area-wide traffic calming

measures in Singapore
Samuel Chng a, *, Catherine Chang a, Karenza Mosquera b, Wai Yan Leong b
a
Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore
b
Economics Unit, Policy and Planning, Land Transport Authority, Singapore

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Traffic calming has been introduced in many cities in a bid to create more age-friendly and sustainable com­
Traffic calming munities. This study uses Q methodology to understand the perspectives and experiences of residents after almost
Q methodology a decade since the first implementation of traffic calming measures in neighbourhoods in Singapore. In partic­
Age-friendly
ular, we focused on the Silver Zone programme, which involves the introduction of senior-friendly road safety
features in areas with a high proportion of senior residents and where there have been past road traffic injury
involving seniors. With 26 participants, we identified three perspectives and termed them the Road Safety
Enthusiast, Inconvenienced Users, and Implementation Critics. While their perspectives of the traffic calming
measures were different, we found that all three groups broadly supported the objectives of Silver Zones. The
participants were able to identify that the benefits of traffic calming go beyond protecting vulnerable populations
to enhancing the liveability and overall traffic safety of their neighbourhood and community. However, the
benefits and inconveniences of these measures were felt differently across these groups, which are areas for
planners and policymakers to address to increase the support for traffic calming in neighbourhoods. The efficacy
of Q methodology for mobility and planning related research is also supported and further discussed in the
article.

Introduction everyday transport needs (Banister, 2005; Newman and Kenworthy,

In tandem with growing concerns around ageing populations in cities
worldwide, policymakers and urban planners have been prioritising the
creation of age-friendly cities with age-friendly infrastructures that also
meet the growing desire for sustainability. Age-friendly cities, as defined
by the World Health Organisation (2007), are urban environments that
have accessible and inclusive structures and services that enhances the
quality of life as its residents age through optimising opportunities for
health, participation, and security. While there are various dimensions
of an age-friendly city, our focus is the introduction of traffic calming
measures as a means of improving the age-friendliness of urban in­
frastructures at the neighbourhood levels in cities to facilitate safe and
active mobility across ages.
Automobiles present an intractable dilemma for the 21st-century
urban planner when planning for age-friendly and sustainable cities.
Decades of car-centric urbanisation in the 20th century have resulted in
many large, sprawling cities with under-developed or under-utilised
public transport infrastructures, where automobiles are necessary for
2006). Utilitarian-value aside, in many areas, the automobile remains an
aspirational signifier of modernity, and of one’s socio-cultural status,
success and desirability (Chng et al., 2019). However, automobiles are at
odds with contemporary planning visions, where the modern ideal city
is one that is sustainable, healthy, and space-efficient (Hickman, Hall
and Banister, 2013; Kenworthy, 2006). Automobiles, in their current
forms, are sources of urban disamenities – sprawls, noise and air
pollution, traffic congestions, traffic collisions – and require dedicated
space-intensive infrastructures, including parking lots, large roads,
expressways.
Given the continued dependence on automobiles in contemporary
cities vis-a-vis a strengthening case for crafting climate-resilient and
sustainable cities, traffic calming measures have emerged as a strategy
for re-orienting some streets towards pedestrians and cyclists, while still
allowing space for automobiles to pass through (Balant and Lep, 2020;
Cloutier and Pfeiffer, 2015; Tiboni et al., 2021). This is part of a larger
mobility transition where transportation systems are increasingly
designed around active, non-motorised modes of transport such as

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Samuel_chng@sutd.edu.sg (S. Chng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100710
Received 4 July 2022; Received in revised form 7 September 2022; Accepted 26 October 2022
Available online 8 November 2022
2590-1982/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Chng et al.
walking and cycling (Hickman, Hall and Banister, 2013; Koszowski
et al., 2019). The mobility transition is itself shaped by the wider
discourse on urban sustainability and resilience (Beatley, 2015; Nieu­
wenhuijsen, 2020). It reflects three interrelated concerns over (1) the
carbon footprint of cities amidst an ongoing climate crisis; (2) negative
externalities related to motorised vehicles, namely traffic congestion,
road traffic injury, and pollution; and (3) potential declines in civic life
and attachments to place in vehicle-dominated cities. It is believed that
walkable cities – designed for the movement of people rather than cars –
are more sustainable, liveable and inclusive than automobile-centric
cities (Khomenko et al., 2020; Macharis and Keseru, 2018).
Traffic calming measures have been implemented in different cities
around the world and have been shown by research to be effective in
improving traffic safety and reducing the risk of road traffic injuries (e.
g., Bunn et al. (2003)), improving environmental conditions (e.g.,
Cloutier and Pfeiffer (2015), and Elvik (2001)) and promote the use of
public transport and active mobility modes (e.g., Balant and Lep (2020),
and Tiboni et al. (2021)). Typically, these are area-wide traffic calming,
implemented in an area as a whole, rather than location specific traffic
calming as the latter approach is not always sufficient to reduce traffic
incidents, which tend to be scattered throughout the street network
(Elvik, 2001). However, it is likely that these are quantifiable outcomes
that matter to policymakers and researchers more than it does for the
community who live in areas where traffic calming measures were
implemented. Our understanding of the reaction and perspectives on the
community who live around and interact with traffic calming measures
for extended duration remains scant as previous studies focused on pre
and/or the immediate post implementation of traffic calming measures.
As Crouse (2004) put forward, traffic calming is more than traffic
calming; it is also about the people, people calming.
Hence, this study uses Q methodology to explore the perspectives of
residents towards traffic calming measures that have been implemented
in their communities. Before introducing the study’s context and
methodology, the literature on traffic calming and age-friendly cities is
reviewed. After which, the results of the analysis are presented and
discussed, alongside the implications for research, urban planning and
policies.
Traffic calming
Traffic calming as an urban concept is an integration of a suite of
measures for the hierarchization of the road and street system where
they are employed (Ewing and Brown, 2017). These measures are pri­
marily implemented for traffic and pedestrian safety, and can be infra­
structural (e.g. narrowing roadways, constructing speed humps, curb
extensions, and traffic circles to nudge motorists into adopting slower
speeds) or regulatory (e.g. specifying an upper-speed-limit) (Ewing and
Brown, 2017; Harvey, 1992; Lee et al., 2013a; Lee et al., 2013b). The
applications of traffic calming measures differ vary considerably, refer
to Table 1 for a selected comparison. Nonetheless, these interventions
slow vehicular speeds in traffic-calmed areas, giving motorists more
time to react to other road users, reduce braking distance and increasing
vehicle driver angle of view (Ewing and Brown, 2017). They also reduce
impact speeds and severity of road traffic injuries, should a collision
occur (Bunn et al., 2003; Cairns et al., 2015; Elvik, 2001).
Beyond these direct benefits, enhanced road safety arising from
traffic calming measures may lead to increased active mobility in the
area: existing studies show how individuals’ decisions to walk or cycle
are influenced by perceptions of safety and comfort (Balant and Lep,
2020; Lee et al., 2013b; Koszowski et al., 2019). Further evidence from
simulation studies suggest that traffic calming measures contribute to
reduced traffic congestion, noise and air pollution within an area (Bal­
dasano et al., 2010; Madireddy et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2019). Alto­
gether, these potentially enhance an area’s environment and liveability,
with Hydén (2021) suggesting that traffic calming programmes have the
potential to correct existing inequalities brought about by urban
2
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100710
Table 1
Selected comparisons of implemented traffic calming infrastructural measures.
Measures Borehamwood Vinderup Singapore Queens
(England)1 (Denmark)1 (New York
City, US)2
Lane narrowing ✓ ✓ ✓
Medians and ✓ ✓ ✓
refuge islands
Speed tables
✓ ✓ ✓
Mini ✓ ✓
roundabouts
Pre-warning ✓ ✓
rumble strips
Increased
✓ ✓
pedestrian
crossings
Footway build- ✓ ✓
outs
Cycleways ✓
Planting and
✓ ✓
landscaping
Gateway ✓ ✓
Note: 1 Harvey, T. (1992). A review of current traffic calming techniques. Leeds, UK:
Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds. 2 https://www1.nyc.gov/ht
ml/dot/downloads/pdf/2015–06-astoria-slowzone-cb1.pdf
development.
Several broad principles influence the development of traffic calming
measures (Andrzej and Kempa, 2019, Ewing and Brown, 2017). First,
the measures, in its functioning, should not pose traffic dangers. Second,
the measures should limit unnecessary traffic into the area to reduce
vehicular traffic to the minimum. Third, clear signposting of the mea­
sures upon entry into the zone should be provided. Fourth, measures
should be implemented to prioritize pedestrians, cyclists and public
transit rather than private vehicles. Lastly, vehicular speed should be
limited and uniformly applied within the zone to ensure vehicle speeds
are stabilized. Application of these broad principles in different combi­
nations are seen in the traffic calming measures implemented in cities
globally to suit their local context and need.
Despite these principles and the long history of implementing traffic
calming measures in cities, often these measures may not be as effective
or accepted by the local communities where they are implemented as
anticipated. The best practice models of traffic calming that are often
circulated globally will still require planners and policymakers to
consider how these models might or might not work in their local
context (Rahman et al., 2005). In addition, they highlight the need to use
a more participatory design approach with stakeholders, and specifically
the local residents, prior to planning and implementing traffic calming
measures (van Schagen, 2003). Selzer and Lanzendorf (2019) further
emphasizes that understanding the different perspectives of stake­
holders in the planning and implementation process of new measures in
neighborhoods is a prerequisite for successful implementation and for
ensuring that the everyday realities of local residents are not neglected
in the pursuit of transferring an ideal urban model to reality.
Study context: Silver Zones in Singapore
The study focused on the implementation of traffic calming in
neighbourhoods in Singapore, a highly-dense Southeast Asian city-state
with a land area of 728.3 square kilometers with a population of 5.45
million and a population density of 7,810 per square kilometre
(Department of Statistics, 2022). Despite its high population density and
relative wealth of the population, Singapore has a relatively small car
population of only 647,359 (as of 2021), which amounts to roughly 119
cars per 1000 population (Land Transport Authority, 2022). This is
largely a result of the Vehicle Quota System (VQS), which is a tool to
keep the vehicle population at manageable levels, given Singapore’s
limited land. The allowable vehicle growth rate was progressively
S. Chng et al.
lowered from 3 % to 0 % (except for commercial and goods vehicles) in
2018, effectively freezing the vehicle population (a detailed introduc­
tion is available in Chng et al. (2019)). Concurrently, public trans­
portation and active mobility are encouraged through investing in
affordable and accessible public transportation network, and the pro­
vision of cycling and walking infrastructure respectively.
Nevertheless, road traffic injury – especially those involving seniors
– remain a concern in Singapore. Traffic incidents involving pedestrians
disproportionately involve seniors, and fatal incidents involving senior
pedestrians accounted for more than 80 % of fatal traffic incidents
involving pedestrians in 2020 (Singapore Police Force, 2021). This is
worrying given Singapore’s rapidly ageing population: as of mid-2021,
residents aged 65 years and older made up 16.0 % of the resident pop­
ulation – a two-third increase from 9.0 % in 2010 (Department of Sta­
tistics, 2022).
In order to enhance road safety for all pedestrians, especially for
senior residents, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) launched the Silver
Zone scheme in 2014. This scheme involves the systematic imple­
mentation of area-wide traffic calming measures in selected residential
roads and was first initiated by the Committee on Pedestrian and Cyclist
Safety that was set up in March 2013 to re-examine ways to make Sin­
gapore’s roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists (LTA, 2014). It builds on
existing road safety initiatives for seniors, such as the Green Man +
programme which allows seniors to extend the “green man” timing at
selected pedestrian crossings using their Senior Citizen concession
public transport card (LTA, n.d.). The first Silver Zone was launched at
one of the five pilot residential areas (Bukit Merah View) in October
2014. Since then, the LTA has implemented Silver Zones at 22 locations
and this number is expected to increase to 50 by 2025 (Ministry of
Transport [MOT], 2022). We have compiled the locations of the Silver
Fig. 1. Images of traffic calming measures in Silver Zones in Singapore. 1: Fluorescent yellow-green signs and yellow rumble strips indicating the start of a Silver
Zone. 2: 2D markings on the road make roads appear narrower to encourage motorists to slow down. 3 and 4: Overviews of a new Y-junction with narrower lanes and
infrastructural enhancements to create safer crossing points for pedestrians. Image credits: Land Transport Authority. (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
3
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100710
Zones and presented here: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ovBif/2/.
There are three factors when selecting residential areas for Silver
Zone implementation: whether the area (1) has a high population of
senior residents; (2) has a relatively higher rate road traffic injuries
involving seniors; and (3) contains amenities that are frequented by
seniors. Once the LTA has identified the selected stretches of roads, they
begin the preliminary design of the Silver Zone with the community, to
co-create the Silver Zone together. Typically, the implementation of the
Silver Zone scheme involves the creation of a Silver Zone gateway
– these are prominent fluorescent yellow-green signs, prominent road
markings and yellow rumble strips that indicate the start of a Silver
Zone. At most gateways, there are also setback kerb-cut ramps – narrow
crossing points that reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians and that
give motorists more time to look out for crossing pedestrians. Other
Silver Zone measures include two-stage kerbless crossings with green
railings that seek to guide and channel senior pedestrians to these safer
crossing points; chicanes (s-shaped curved roads) that encourage mo­
torists to drive at lower speeds; and low-height centre dividers which
reduce lane widths while still allowing emergency vehicles to drive over
them safely. See Table 1 for summary of key infrastructural measures
and Fig. 1 for images of Silver Zones.
Evaluations conducted by LTA, and as reported in parliament by the
Senior Minister of State for Transport, indicate that the number of traffic
incidents involving senior pedestrians had dropped by about 80 % in
places where Silver Zones have been implemented (MOT, 2022).
Further, they reported following the first two implementations that
residents felt that the introduction of Silver Zones had enhanced road
safety in the area (LTA, 2015). The positive evaluations of the scheme
led to the expansion of the Silver Zone scheme, which now aims to
implement 50 Silver Zones by 2025.
S. Chng et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100710

However, to the authors’ best knowledge, there is no research con­ Table 2

ducted to understand the perspectives and experiences of citizens Statements in the Q-set presented to participants.
around Silver Zones and the traffic calming measures implemented Themes Statements
within, apart from those by LTA. Thus, we address this knowledge gap
Inconvenience 1) Silver Zones are an inconvenience.
and distil insights and implications for traffic calming measures in 2) Silver Zones have dedicated crossings which
Singapore and similar hyper-urbanised environments. mean I have to walk further to get to where I
want to go.
3) Silver Zones make it easier for residents to get
Method
around the neighbourhood by walking or
cycling.
To establish and unpack the heterogeneity in the perspectives and 4) The people for whom Silver Zones are being
experiences around Silver Zones, we adopted a research design based on built are not using/will not use it.
Q methodology. Although not a mainstay in transportation and urban Impact on traffic conditions 5) Silver Zones make traffic jams more common.
6) Speed limits in Silver Zones are too low.
studies, Q methodology has been used effectively in diverse fields such
7) Lower speed limits in Silver Zones should be
as political science, education, and environmental behaviour to better applicable at certain times of the day.
understand differing political viewpoints (Brown, 1980), attitudes to­ 8) Motorists mostly ignore speed limits in Silver
wards educational approaches (Barker, 2008), and discourses around Zones.
Enhancing neighbourhood 9) Having a Silver Zone in my neighbourhood
environmental issues (Addams and Proops, 2000). It comprises quanti­
safety reduces vehicular accidents.
tative and interpretivist approaches for systematically identifying “so­ 10) It is not possible to improve road safety
cial viewpoints and knowledge structures relative to a chosen subject without reducing the road limit speeds.
matter” (Watts and Stenner, 2012: 42). We detail the approach we took 11) Silver Zones do not solve the main cause of
to adapt this methodology for our study below. Readers may refer to traffic accidents.
12) Silver Zones make it more likely for accidents
Cools et al. (2012) and Rajé (2007) for examples of applying Q meth­
to happen.
odology in transportation research, and to Watts and Stenner (2012) and 13) Silver Zones do not stop errant drivers.
Nost, Robertson and Lave (2019) for comprehensive guides and dis­ Effectiveness of Silver Zones 14) To reduce jaywalking, LTA should increase
cussions about the theoretical and practical aspects of Q methodology surveillance and fines rather than build Silver
Zones.
and its application in investigating subjectivity.
15) Silver Zones are ineffective when they are
The value of Q methodology lies in its ability to distil multiple in­ built at busy roads or key junctions
dividual viewpoints – thereby respecting the unique perspectives and 16) Silver Zones do not solve the problem of
experiences that each participant may have on Silver Zones – into latent jaywalking.1
‘factors’ to reveal the broader social structures or “social facts” (Watts 17) Silver Zones do not make it safer for elderly
residents to get around their neighbourhood.
and Stenner, 2012) that influence individual views. These latent ‘factors’
18) Pedestrians won’t look out for vehicles in
– which are identified by conducting factor analysis on the Q-sort data Silver Zones because they assume drivers will
(detailed later) – offer empirical anchor points for understanding how slow down for them.
residents perceive and experience Silver Zones, as well as related Improving the quality of life in 19) Getting around my neighbourhood is safer
transport and urban policies. the neighbourhood with a Silver Zone.
20) Silver Zones are good for school children and
The Q methodology is a two-stage research process. In the first stage, individuals with mobility issues.
researchers create a concourse of statements around the chosen subject 21) Cycling around neighbourhoods is easier with
matter (i.e., traffic calming in Singapore). This concourse should reflect a Silver Zone.
a holistic worldview, and account for the breadth and variety of all 22) The current roads in my neighbourhood are
not pedestrian-friendly.
potential perspectives on the subject. Researchers will then extract a
23) The current roads in my neighbourhood are
subset of statements (the “Q-set”) from this concourse. not cyclist-friendly.
In the second stage, participants are invited to sort the Q-set. Sorting 24) Silver Zones correctly prioritise the needs of
occurs in two phases. First, participants will sort the Q-set based on the community over the needs of drivers.
whether they agree, disagree or feel neutral about the statements. This 25) Cyclists and pedestrians should be able to
travel comfortably too, not just motorists.
allowed participants to be acquainted with the statements. Next, par­ 26) Silver Zones make roads more inclusive.
ticipants will sort the statements onto a symmetrical Q grid that reflects 27) Silver Zones should not only be implemented
a normal distribution. The x-axis of the grid is a scale to capture the in areas with a high elderly population.
strength of the participants’ opinions: statements that participants 28) Silver Zones encourage me to walk more in
my neighbourhood.
disagree with most are placed on the left, while statements that they
Achieve Singapore’s transport 29) Silver Zones make Singapore a more age-
agree with most are placed on the right. On both extreme ends of the grid vision friendly city.
(i.e., strongly agree and strongly disagree), participants could only place 30) Singapore needs fewer roads.
a limited number of statements. Participants are instructed to place the Policy in practice 31) The government has evaluated the challenges
sorted statements onto the grid in order, beginning with statements in drivers would face where Silver Zones are
implemented.
the ‘agree’ bucket, and then the ‘disagree’ bucket. The sorting ends with 32) Concerns regarding Silver Zones are not being
statements in the ‘neutral’ bucket placed in the remaining spaces on the heard or addressed.
grid. 33) Policymakers/planners should seek to
For our study, we created the concourse by compiling articles and understand why people jaywalk in the first
place.
online posts with the term “Silver Zones” or its derivatives that have
34) There should be more publicity on the Silver
been published in local media (e.g., The Straits Times (Singapore’s Zone Scheme to increase public awareness.
newspaper of record) and Channel News Asia (Singapore’s main news 35) I believe the government has correctly
broadcaster)); social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter and Instagram); and identified which areas are suitable for Silver
local online forums (e.g., HardwareZone and Reddit). We then con­ Zones.

ducted discourse analysis on these articles and posts to create a Q-set of 1

In Singapore, jaywalking is officially defined as crossing the road within 50
35 statements across seven emergent themes. Care was taken to ensure m of a designated crossing facility such as a green-man traffic light or a zebra-
that the Q-set was unbiased, easy to understand, and would elicit a range crossing. Jaywalking is an offence in Singapore and first-time offenders can be
of reactions. Table 2 details the Q-set. fined. Since we are interested in understanding residents’ perspectives and

4
S. Chng et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100710

beliefs on the Silver Zone Scheme, we allowed respondents to answer the survey
based on their own understanding of ‘jaywalking’ without drawing their
attention to its technical definition.
Participants for the second stage were recruited via an open call
shared through the research team’s and our collaborators’ personal and
professional networks. Proponents of Q methodology suggest that a
large number of participants is not required, but study participants
should be familiar with and have a distinct view on the topic. Thus, the
emphasis when recruiting participants should be on ensuring that
subjectivity within the sample exists and the extent to which they are
similar and dissimilar (Brown, 1993; Du Plessis, 2005). While Q-meth­
odologists suggest that the participants (P set) reflect the variability
among the targeted population, the proportion of participants sharing a
particular characteristic is not important (Brown, 1980). Accordingly,
we recruited 26 Singaporean residents for the second stage, with a good
representation across age groups and exposure to Silver Zones. Table 3
provides the basic demographics of the participants. Given that senior
residents are the target demographic group of the Silver Zone Scheme,
we had initially attempted to recruit more senior participants for our
sample. However, because the Q-sorting exercise was conducted online
via Zoom, it was challenging to identify suitable senior participants who
were both conversant in English and comfortable with using virtual
platforms. Having face-to-face sessions, as how Q-method surveys are
typically conducted, was not possible under the COVID-19 situation.
The sorting was conducted online using the open-access EQ Web Sort
developed by Shawn Banasick (2019a), via Zoom, in June 2021. Par­
ticipants were able to complete the sorting in web browsers on their
personal devices (computers, mobile phones and tablets) though we
encouraged participants to complete the study on computers for ease of
sorting on a device with a larger display. After consenting to the study,
all participants were presented with a video introduction of Silver Zones
in Singapore followed by the sorting of statements. As we had 35
statements in our Q-set, we opted for a nine-interval scale on the x-axis,
ranging from − 4 (strongly disagree) to +4 (strongly agree), with a
neutral column at 0. As the grid was normally distributed, this meant
that participants could only place 2 statements on each of the extreme
ends. After participants completed the sorting activity, follow-up ques­
tions were asked to better understand why they placed certain state­
ments in certain positions. Each participant took 15 min on average to
complete the entire sorting process; most also said they enjoyed the
sorting activity. All participants provided consent and received a S$10
gift card to compensate them for their time.
Data analysis
Factor analysis was used to extract latent ‘factors’ across the 26 Q-
sorts collected. These factors represent participants’ perspectives around
Silver Zones. In Q methodology factor analysis, Q-sorts load on a given
factor because they exhibit a common pattern. The loadings are used to
identify participants sharing a common perspective on the given topic
(Stenner, Cooper and Skevington, 2003; Brown, 1980). The Q method­
ology factor analysis also allows distinguishing and consensus state­
ments to be identified as each statement will have a factor z-score. When
the difference between the factor z-scores of a statement for each pair of
factors is statistically significant, the statement is a distinguishing
statement. When none of the differences is significant, the statement is a
consensus statement.
We conducted our analysis using KADE, an open-source Q method­
ology data analysis application developed by Shawn Banasick (2019b).
This application implements the required factor analysis through prin­
cipal component analysis with varimax rotation of the factors. Through
principal components analysis, we identified eight factors from the data.
Following this, we performed 6 iterations of varimax rotation – at first
keeping only 3 factors for rotation, then increasing the number of factors
kept by one for each iteration, until all 8 factors were kept for rotation.

Table 3
Demographic information about participants with their factor loadings.
Factor loadings

ID Age Gender Driving habit Cycling habit Encountered Silver Road Safety Inconvenienced User Implementation Critic
Zones? Enthusiast

1 33 Male Rarely Once a week Yes 0.57* 0.09 0.20

2 22 Female Once a week Rarely Yes 0.73* 0.01 0.22
3 25 Female Rarely 2–3 times a week Yes 0.79* 0.23 − 0.02
4 24 Male I do not drive Rarely Yes 0.77* − 0.15 − 0.30
5 26 Female Once a week Once a week Yes 0.57* − 0.40 0.33
6 41 Male I do not drive 2–3 times a week Yes 0.39* 0.00 0.22
7 33 Male I do not drive Once a week Yes 0.61* − 0.33 0.34
8 60 Female I do not drive Rarely No 0.62* − 0.29 − 0.12
9 62 Female Rarely Rarely Yes 0.51* − 0.40 0.24
10 62 Male Everyday/almost Rarely Yes 0.55* 0.29 0.11
everyday
11 58 Male Everyday/almost I do not cycle Yes 0.61* − 0.34 0.48
everyday
12 41 Female I do not drive Rarely Yes 0.58* 0.15 0.49
13 45 Male I do not drive Once a week Yes 0.85* 0.01 0.01
14 30 Female I do not drive I do not cycle Yes 0.13 0.64* − 0.02
15 56 Female 2–3 times a week I do not cycle Yes 0.39 0.57* 0.11
16 29 Female Everyday/almost 2–3 times a week No 0.06 0.63* 0.41
everyday
17 24 Male 4–5 times a week Rarely Yes − 0.10 0.44* 0.03
18 24 Female I do not drive I do not cycle Unsure 0.14 − 0.54* 0.32
19 56 Male I do not drive I do not cycle Yes − 0.26 0.03 0.45*
20 39 Female I do not drive Rarely No 0.03 0.04 0.69*
21 25 Female I do not drive Rarely No 0.29 0.11 0.63*
22 58 Female 2–3 times a week Rarely Yes 0.04 0.01 0.43*
23 44 Female 4–5 times a week I do not cycle Yes 0.27 − 0.21 0.67*
24 25 Female Rarely I do not cycle Yes 0.23 − 0.32 0.26
25 62 Female I do not drive I do not cycle Yes 0.52 − 0.28 0.46
26 40 Male Everyday/almost I do not cycle Yes 0.31 − 0.10 0.29
everyday
* p <.05

5
S. Chng et al.
We then compared the results for each rotation to qualitatively deter­
mine the optimal solution by looking at: (1) the number of participants
included in each ‘factor’ group as represented by the q sorts that loaded
on the same factor (McKeown and Thomas, 2013); (2) the explained
variance in the set of factors; and (3) the persuasiveness of the conclu­
sion that could be drawn from the consensus and distinguishing
statements.
Results
Following the data analysis strategy described above, we arrived at a
three-factor solution that collectively explained 47 % of the total vari­
ance in our study, with 23 of the 26 participants loading significantly
onto one of the three factors. Table 4 provides a summary of the number
of participant Q-sorts that loaded onto each factor as well as the ei­
genvalues, explained variance, and reliability associated with the three
factors, as well as the participant demographic and profile in each factor.
As described earlier, we looked at the number of Q-sorts that the
solution could capture, and the explained variance to decide the optimal
solution. In terms of variance, the three-factor solution was better than
the one- and two-factor solution because it explained more variance
than the other two. However, the three-factor solution did not explain as
much variance as the solutions with more factors. Nonetheless, we opted
for the three-factor solution because it was able to capture 23 of 26 Q-
sorts. In comparison, the solutions with more factors captured an even
smaller number of Q-sorts: the four- and five-factor solutions explained
54 % and 61 % of the variance respectively, but only reflected 20 and 19
Q sorts respectively; and the six-, seven- and eight-factor solutions
explained 67 %, 72 % and 76 % of the variance respectively while
reflecting only 19, 20 and 18 Q-sorts respectively.
Two of the three Q-sorts that were excluded from further analysis did
not load on any extracted factor, while the remaining Q-sort loaded on
two of the three factors (Armatas, Venn and Watson, 2014; Watts and
Stenner, 2012). These were not anomalous results as it is reasonable to
expect one or more unique perspectives to be present in a small con­
venience sample of individuals and Q methodology, by design, chal­
lenges practitioners to concentrate on factors defined by two or more
statistically significant Q-sorts.
Hence, the three-factor solution we identified reveals three prevail­
ing perspectives on Silver Zones: Factor 1 – Road Safety Enthusiasts;
Factor 2 – Inconvenienced Users; and Factor 3 – Implementation Critics.
Next, we explain each of these factors in detail.
Factor 1: Road safety Enthusiasts
The first factor explained 28 % of the total variance. It captured the
Q-sorts of 13 participants with a mean age of 40.92 years. All but one
participant had personal encounters with Silver Zones. Only 2 (15 %)
frequently drove and cycled. The Q-sort data suggests that participants
in this group valued road safety, not just for the aged, but for all road
users. Thus, we interpreted Factor 1 as reflecting the perspectives of
“road safety enthusiasts”.
Table 4
Summary statistics and demographics of participants in each factor.
Road Safety Enthusiasts
Number of participants 13
Eigenvalue 7.30
%Explained variance 28
Reliability 0.981
Female 46 %
Mean age 40.92
Have encountered Silver Zones 92 %
Frequent driver 15 %
Frequent cyclist 15 %
Note: Frequent drivers are those who reported driving at least 2–3 times a week; Frequent cyclists are those who reported cycling at least 2–3 times a week.
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100710
We arrived at this interpretation by considering the group’s dis­
tinguishing statements on the extreme ends. Those in Factor 1 were
more likely to strongly agree (+4) that “Silver Zones make Singapore a
more age-friendly city” (Statement 29) and more likely to strongly
disagree (-4) with the statement “Silver Zones do not make it safer for
elderly residents to get around their neighbourhood” (Statement 17).
Further, they were more likely to strongly agree (+4) that “Cyclists and
pedestrians should be able to travel comfortably, not just motorists”
(Statement 25) and that “Silver Zones make roads more inclusive”
(Statement 26). Thus, for this group, the benefits of Silver Zones
expanded beyond its target demographic (i.e., the senior residents).
Instead, Silver Zones also had benefits for other road users, such as cy­
clists. In the explanations they provided for their sorts, participants also
expressed appreciation for the design of Silver Zones. They highlighted
the easier level crossings that have been built in such zones, and the use
of bright colours to clearly demarcate crossings and traffic lanes within
the zone. They felt these design elements prompt drivers to consciously
look out for other road users when driving in the area, thereby
improving safety for all users.
Factor 2: Inconvenienced users
The second factor explained 10 % of the total variance and
comprised five participants with a mean age of 32.60 – the youngest of
the three factors. Three participants had personal encounters with Silver
Zones; and the same number were frequent drivers. Factor 2 contained
the largest proportion of frequent drivers, relative to the other factors.
Based on the Q-sort data, participants in this group were more likely to
think that Silver Zones would lead to greater inconveniences for them.
Hence, we interpreted Factor 2 as reflecting the perspectives of
“Inconvenienced users”.
We arrived at this interpretation as those in Factor 2 were more likely
to strongly agree (+4) that “Silver Zones make traffic jams more com­
mon” (Statement 5). They explained that this was partly because Silver
Zones were in areas with high vehicular and foot traffic. When imple­
mented in these areas, Silver Zones – as traffic calming measures
– would slow the traffic and increase the likelihood of congestions and
delays for them. These individuals also thought that Silver Zones would
cause pedestrians to be complacent. They strongly agree (+4) that
“Pedestrians won’t look out for vehicles in Silver Zones because they
assume drivers will slow down for them” (Statement 18). It is possible
that participants in this groups reflected the views more aligned with a
motorist, as opposed to pedestrians, especially as this group comprised
of the largest representation (60 %) of participants who were frequent
drivers.
Interestingly, these “Inconvenienced Users” strongly disagreed (-4)
that “To reduce jaywalking, [the authorities] should increase surveil­
lance and fines rather than build Silver Zones” (Statement 14). In their
explanations for this viewpoint, one participant opined that such puni­
tive measures were “unfair” as “fines often end up punishing the people
who can least afford it whereas those who are able to deal with the
financial penalty of fines will often not consider the repercussions of
Inconvenienced Users Implementation Critic Across all 3 factors
5 5 23
2.54 2.31
10 9
0.952 0.952
80 % 80 % 61 %
32.60 44.40 39.87
60 % 60 % 78 %
60 % 40 % 30 %
20 % 0% 13 %
6
S. Chng et al.
their actions as much.” Another participant questioned the effectiveness
of punitive measures, saying that these measures may not address un­
derlying structural factors (e.g., gaps in road design) that may influence
someone to jaywalk. They gave the example of a senior individual who
may choose to jaywalk – even if doing so is unsafe – because they have
difficulties walking up the steps of an overhead bridge. This viewpoint
added depth to our understanding of “inconvenienced users’’. Consid­
ering the above observations collectively, we were directed away from
interpreting the group as selfish individuals; instead allowing us to un­
derstand “inconvenienced users” as individuals who ultimately value
road safety interventions that are effective and fair to all road users,
including drivers.
Factor 3: Implementation Critics
The third factor explained 9 % of the total variance and comprised 5
participants, with a mean age of 44.40 years – the oldest of the three
groups. Like the “Inconvenienced Users”, three of five participants had
personal encounters with Silver Zones. Two participants were frequent
drivers; and none cycled regularly. The Q-sort data suggests that in­
dividuals in this group were generally supportive of Silver Zones but
were sceptical about the effectiveness of Silver Zones in their current
form. Put differently, they were supportive of Silver Zones in theory, but
not in practice. Thus, we have interpreted Factor 3 as reflecting the
perspectives of “Implementation Critics”.
Individuals in this group felt that Silver Zones do not currently stop
errant drivers or address the main cause of traffic incidents. They were
more likely to strongly agree (+4) that “Policymakers/planners should
seek to understand why people jaywalk in the first place” (Statement
33). However, they also felt that it is right to apply lower speed limits in
Silver Zones at all times of the day. This is because seniors or even other
vulnerable users (e.g., children, disabled individuals) may use roads at
any time of the day, and traffic incidents can also occur at any time. This
differs from “Inconvenienced users”, who thought that lower speed
limits would lead to traffic congestion. Accordingly, “Implementation
Critics” strongly disagreed (-4) that “Lower speed limits in Silver Zones
should be applicable at certain times of the day.” (Statement 7). This
group also thought that much more could be done to complement the
implementation of Silver Zones. They strongly agreed (+4) that “There
should be more publicity on the Silver Zone Scheme to increase public
awareness” (Statement 34). In their explanations for this viewpoint,
participants shared that they have not seen or read about Silver Zones in
advertisements or the local news. Instead, they have only seen the
signages that have been up to alert road users that the area was a Silver
Zone. They shared that these signages were insufficient because they do
not explain what a Silver Zone is. More importantly, they do not alert
road users to the problem that Silver Zones are meant to solve (i.e., road
safety for senior users) and thus, the importance of abiding by rules
within a Silver Zone.
Discussion
The study set out to investigate the residents’ perspectives of traffic
calming following their introduction in neighbourhoods in Singapore,
which had been implemented as part of the city’s Silver Zone pro­
gramme. Using Q methodology, we identified three perspectives of Sil­
ver Zones. Overall, residents supported introducing traffic calming
measures to enhance road safety in their neighbourhoods. The first and
most prevalent perspective from our sample was that of “Road Safety
Enthusiasts”, residents who supported traffic calming measures and
thought positively of its ability to create safer roads for residents and
users. Although these measures were implemented with senior residents
as its target beneficiaries – as evident from the programme’s name
(Silver Zones) – “Road Safety Enthusiasts” felt that the measures
benefited all residents, and not just the seniors. Notably, this group had a
larger proportion of participants with exposure to Silver Zones. This
7
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100710
suggests that the group might be speaking from their personal experi­
ences, rather than how the scheme was conceived and conveyed by the
implementing bodies. This might indicate that first-hand exposure to
traffic calming measures in neighbourhoods might contribute towards
building support among the community for these measures, even if they
might not exist yet.
The second perspective was that of “Inconvenienced Users” who
were less enthusiastic about traffic calming measures as they thought
that it brought inconvenience to them (e.g., greater traffic congestions in
their neighbourhoods). Those who shared this perspective tended to be
younger and were more likely to be frequent drivers and cyclists, which
might have led this group to opinionate that while the effectiveness of
the measures are valuable, the impact and benefit of their imple­
mentation should be fairly experienced across different groups of users,
motorists and non-motorists alike. They strongly disagreed with intro­
ducing punitive measures (i.e., surveillance and fines) to prevent jay­
walking (a leading cause of traffic incidents involving seniors) and their
explanations for doing so reflected empathy for less-privileged and
vulnerable individuals. Given these, we intuit that “inconvenienced
users” were less supportive of Silver Zones because they did not think
the measures, in its current form, led to fair outcomes (i.e., costs or in­
conveniences were not equally distributed across all users, including
motorists), and because they did not think Silver Zones effectively
addressed the factors leading to unsafe practices by individuals (e.g.,
jaywalking).
The third perspective was that of “Implementation Critics”. Re­
spondents in this group, like “Inconvenienced Users”, thought that the
Silver Zones scheme alone cannot create safer neighbourhoods as they
do not stop errant drivers nor address the root causes of traffic incidents.
However, unlike “Inconvenienced Users”, “Implementation Critics”
were less likely to attribute the limitations of Silver Zones to the scheme
as it is. Instead, they attributed limitations to issues they perceived in the
scheme’s implementation and might also be viewed as proponents for
expansion of the scheme. They highlighted, for instance, the need for
better publicity of Silver Zones to make users aware of the rationale
behind traffic calming measures, and thus potentially increase the
likelihood of users abiding by these measures.
Collectively, these perspectives reflect a citizenry who are supportive
of efforts to enhance road safety in their neighbourhoods, but who may
nonetheless differ in their support for traffic calming measures that have
already been implemented. These findings, generated using Q method­
ology, are the first for traffic calming measures, and of Silver Zones in
Singapore. Below, we consider how these might be taken into consid­
eration for the future refinement and implementation of traffic calming
measures in Singapore, and similar cities.
Implications for planners and policymakers
The implementation of public policy or urban intervention requires
citizen buy-in to be effective, and it is easier to secure buy-in when there
are common priorities across divergent stakeholders. While we identi­
fied three different experiences and perspectives on traffic calming, our
findings also indicate the presence of significant common ground, and
between our participants, urban planners and policymakers: all parties
value road safety and want the roads in neighbourhoods to be safe and
equitable for all users. Planners and policymakers may be reassured of
the presence of broad public support for the Silver Zones scheme and
road safety interventions more generally. Nonetheless, more needs to be
done to secure further citizen buy-in.
Our findings highlight the need for planners and policymakers to
ensure that the direct and indirect implications of any intervention are
evenly distributed across all stakeholders. This is consistent with pre­
vious recommendations by Freytag and colleagues (2014) and Selzer
and Lanzendorf (2019). In the case of Silver Zones, we found that in­
dividuals who were frequent drivers were more likely to express
discontentment with Silver Zones because they perceived greater
S. Chng et al.
inconveniences to them (e.g., traffic congestions). If trade-offs must be
made, these should be clearly communicated to affected users to mini­
mise potential opposition that would otherwise undermine the effec­
tiveness of Silver Zones. This is where participatory design and planning,
especially at the early stages of the process, with community leaders and
interested residents could be critically important. Their participation
goes beyond contributing their perspectives to creating goodwill in the
community and advocates for the scheme within the community too.
Supporting these efforts should be effective public communication ef­
forts that educate and enhance the visibility of traffic calming measures
and the initiative more broadly. These efforts should be oriented around
citizens’ shared concern around road safety, by highlighting the role that
traffic calming play in creating safer and more inclusive
neighbourhoods.
The observation from our participants that the introduction of traffic
calming measures in Singapore, though firstly conceived to be for
enhancing the traffic safety of senior residents, also benefits (and affects)
the whole community highlights that, perhaps, planners and policy­
makers may wish to avoid focusing on a specific group of target users
when designing their urban interventions. Instead, the interventions
should be more inclusive and communicated as such. In the case of
Singapore, ‘Silver Zones’ would be more aptly called ‘Slow Zones’, or
something similar, to remove the added connotation that it is only for
the benefit of the seniors living in the area. Finally, planners and poli­
cymakers could also consider being more deliberate in explaining how
traffic calming interventions contribute towards creating more sustain­
able, liveable and inclusive communities.
Future research directions and limitations
This study employed Q methodology, which has not been widely
applied in mobility and planning related research. Our findings and
experience in this study suggests that Q methodology would be a valu­
able methodology that researchers could consider in future research in
this area should they need to go beyond the traditional surveys, in­
terviews and focus groups. The sorting involved in this method was new
to most participants as they are more accustomed to surveys, interviews
and focus groups. This meant that we had to demonstrate the sorting
process and the tool used to facilitate the process during the briefing.
Despite the additional effort on the research team, this method excels in
its ability to distil multiple individual viewpoints – thereby respecting
the unique perspectives and experiences that each participant may have
on the issues being investigated – to reveal the broader social structures
or “social facts” (Watts and Stenner, 2012) that influence these indi­
vidual views. This method is also cost efficient as it does not require a
large sample as surveys do and uses a more structured approach in
analysing the data, as compared to interviews and focus groups. The
availability of open-access tools for conducting Q-sorts and analysing Q-
data also aids the research process.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there were the following limi­
tations in our study. We focused on traffic calming measures in
Singapore, which limits the generalisability of our findings to other
context that have different mobility and neighbourhood cultures. We
had also used convenient and snowball sampling in this study, which
may have introduced potential bias that might have resulted in a less
comprehensive understanding of the different perspectives that exist.
Unlike large-scale surveys that recruit a representative sample, our
findings were also not able to detail the exact representativeness of each
perspective within the population. However, we should emphasize here
that doing so is not, and will not be, feasible using Q methodology.
Population surveys are better suited for these purposes. While the
findings provided good insights into the range of perspectives on the
introduction of traffic calming measures, the study did not manage to
conduct further investigation into what contributed to the formation for
each type of experience and perspective. This would be an important
area for future work to focus on in order to understand how traffic
8
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100710
calming measures could be designed or implemented differently to
improve the lived experiences and enhance the support for their
implementation in the community. Finally, future research could focus
on how perspectives of traffic calming could be shifted and, if possible,
be made more supportive of traffic calming measures.
Conclusion
These limitations notwithstanding, this study used Q methodology to
understand the perspectives and experiences of traffic calming in
neighbourhoods, and to conduct a study in this area in Singapore, where
traffic calming measures have been progressively implemented in
neighbourhoods in the last decade as part of the Silver Zone programme.
Three distinct perspectives were identified (Road Safety Enthusiasts,
Inconvenienced users, and Implementation Critics) but we found that
our sample supported the implementation of traffic calming measures.
In addition, our findings suggest that participants could identify that the
benefits of traffic calming go beyond protecting vulnerable populations
to enhance the liveability and overall traffic safety of their neighbour­
hood and community. These findings provide a useful basis for future,
more expansive investigations in this area.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
References
Addams H and Proops JL (eds) (2000) Social discourse and environmental policy: An
application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Armatas, C.A., Venn, T.J., Watson, A.E., 2014. Applying Q-methodology to select and
define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming,
United States. Ecol. Econ. 107, 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2014.09.010.
Balant, M., Lep, M., 2020. Comprehensive traffic calming as a key element of sustainable
urban mobility plans—impacts of a neighbourhood redesign in Ljutomer.
Sustainability 12 (19), 8143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198143.
Baldasano, J.M., Gonçalves, M., Soret, A., Jiménez-Guerrero, P., 2010. Air pollution
impacts of speed limitation measures in large cities: The need for improving traffic
data in a metropolitan area. Atmos. Environ. 44 (25), 2997–3006. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.05.013.
Banasick S (2019a) EQ Web Sort [Software]. Available from https://github.com/
shawnbanasick/eq-mobile.
Banasick, S., 2019b. KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. Journal of Open
Source Software 4 (36), 1360. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01360.
Banister, D., 2005. Unsustainable transport: City transport in the new century.
Routledge.
Barker, J.H., 2008. Q-methodology: an alternative approach to research in nurse
education. Nurse Educ. Today 28 (8), 917–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nedt.2008.05.010.
Beatley, T., 2015. Planning for sustainability in European cities: A review of practice in
leading cities. The City Reader 536–547.
Brown, S.R., 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political
Science. Yale University Press.
Brown, S.R., 1993. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16 (3/4), 91–138.
https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.1993.002.
Bunn, F., Collier, T., Frost, C., Ker, K., Roberts, I., Wentz, R., 2003. Traffic calming for the
prevention of road traffic injuries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury
Prevention 9 (3), 200–204. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.9.3.200.
Cairns, J., Warren, J., Garthwaite, K., Greig, G., Bambra, C., 2015. Go slow: an umbrella
review of the effects of 20 mph zones and limits on health and health inequalities.
J. Public Health 37 (3), 515–520. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdu067.
Chng, S., Abraham, C., White, M.P., Skippon, S., 2019. To drive or not to drive? A
qualitative comparison of car ownership and transport experiences in London and
Singapore. Transport. Res. Interdiscipl. Perspectives 2, 100030. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trip.2019.100030.
Cloutier, S., Pfeiffer, D., 2015. Sustainability through happiness: A framework for
sustainable development. Sustainable Develop. 23 (5), 317–327. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sd.1593.
S. Chng et al.
Cools, M., Brijs, K., Tormans, H., De Laender, J., Wets, G., 2012. Optimizing the
implementation of policy measures through social acceptance segmentation. Transp.
Policy 22, 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.013.
Crouse, D.W., 2004. Traffic calming: A social issue. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 24 (2),
138–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467604263564.
Department of Statistics, Singapore (2022, March 18) Population and population
structure. https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/population/
population-and-population-structure/latest-data.
Du Plessis C (2005) A theoretical framework of corporate online communication: A
marketing public relations (MPR) perspective (Doctoral dissertation).
Elvik, R., 2001. Area-wide urban traffic calming schemes: a meta-analysis of safety
effects. Accid. Anal. Prev. 33 (3), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-4575
(00)00046-4.
Ewing, R., Brown, S.J., 2017. US Traffic Calming Manual. Routledge.
Harvey, T., 1992. A Review of Current Traffic Calming Techniques. Institute for
Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Hickman, R., Hall, P., Banister, D., 2013. Planning more for sustainable mobility.
J. Transp. Geogr. 33, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.07.004.
Hydén, C., 2021. Traffic calming: the way ahead in mixed traffic. In: Transport and
Safety. Springer, Singapore, pp. 129–146.
Kenworthy, J.R., 2006. The eco-city: ten key transport and planning dimensions for
sustainable city development. Environ. Urbaniz. 18 (1), 67–85. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0956247806063947.
Khomenko, S., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Ambros, A., Wegener, S., Mueller, N., 2020. Is a
liveable city a healthy city? Health impacts of urban and transport planning in
Vienna, Austria. Environ. Res. 183, 109238 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2020.109238.
Koszowski, C., Gerike, R., Hubrich, S., Götschi, T., Pohle, M., Wittwer, R., 2019. Active
mobility: bringing together transport planning, urban planning, and public health.
In: Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe. Springer, Cham, pp. 149–171.
Land Transport Authority (2014) Silver Zones to make roads safer for the elderly.
https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2014/8/2/silver-zones-to-
make-roads-safer-for-the-elderly.html.
Land Transport Authority (2022) Annual vehicle statistics 2021. https://www.lta.gov.
sg/content/dam/ltagov/who_we_are/statistics_and_publications/statistics/pdf/
MVP01-6_Cars_by_make.pdf.
Lee, G., Joo, S., Oh, C., Choi, K., 2013a. An evaluation framework for traffic calming
measures in residential areas. Transport. Res. Part D: Transport Environ. 25, 68–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.08.002.
Lee, J.S., Zegras, P.C., Ben-Joseph, E., 2013b. Safely active mobility for urban baby
boomers: The role of neighborhood design. Accid. Anal. Prev. 61, 153–166. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.008.
Macharis, C., Keseru, I., 2018. Rethinking mobility for a human city. Transport Rev. 38
(3), 275–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1423612.
Madireddy, M., De Coensel, B., Can, A., Degraeuwe, B., Beusen, B., De Vlieger, I.,
Botteldooren, D., 2011. Assessment of the impact of speed limit reduction and traffic
signal coordination on vehicle emissions using an integrated approach. Transport.
Res. Part D: Transport Environ. 16 (7), 504–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2011.06.001.
McKeown, B., Thomas, D.B., 2013. Q methodology, Vol. 66. Sage Publications.
Ministry of Transport (2022) Speech by Senior Minister of State for Transport, Dr Amy
Khor at MOT Committee of Supply Debate 2022 on Building a Transport System for
You, by You. https://www.mot.gov.sg/news/in-parliament/Details/speech-by-
senior-minister-of-state-for-transport-dr-amy-khor-at-mot-committee-of-supply-
debate-2022-on-building-a-transport-system-for-you-by-you.
Newman, P., Kenworthy, J., 2006. Urban design to reduce automobile dependence.
Opolis 2 (1).
Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2020. Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral,
liveable and healthy cities: A review of the current evidence. Environ. Int. 140,
105661 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105661.
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100710
Nost, E., Robertson, M., Lave, R., 2019. Q-method and the performance of subjectivity:
reflections from a survey of US stream restoration practitioners. Geoforum 105,
23–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2043259.
Rahman F, Takemoto A, Sakamoto K and Kubota H (2005) Comparative study of design
and planning process of traffic calming devices. In Proceedings of the Eastern Asia
Society for Transportation Studies Vol. 5, pp. 1322-1336. Doi: 10.1016/S0386-1112
(14)60227-2.
Rajé, F., 2007. Using Q methodology to develop more perceptive insights on transport
and social inclusion. Transp. Policy 14 (6), 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tranpol.2007.04.006.
Selzer, S., Lanzendorf, M., 2019. On the road to sustainable urban and transport
development in the automobile society? Traced narratives of car-reduced
neighborhoods. Sustainability 11 (16), 4375. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164375.
Singapore Police Force (2021) Annual road traffic situation 2020. https://www.police.
gov.sg/-/media/3A3F46D50E89421B868CB2831B16F974.ashx.
Stenner, P.H., Cooper, D., Skevington, S.M., 2003. Putting the Q into quality of life; the
identification of subjective constructions of health-related quality of life using Q
methodology. Soc. Sci. Med. 57 (11), 2161–2172. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-
9536(03)00070-4.
Tang, J., McNabola, A., Misstear, B., Pilla, F., Alam, M.S., 2019. Assessing the impact of
vehicle speed limits and fleet composition on air quality near a school. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 16 (1), 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010149.
Tiboni, M., Rossetti, S., Vetturi, D., Torrisi, V., Botticini, F., Schaefer, M.D., 2021. Urban
policies and planning approaches for a safer and climate friendlier mobility in cities:
strategies, initiatives and some analysis. Sustainability 13 (4), 1778. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13041778.
van Schagen INLG (2003) Traffic calming schemes: Opportunities and implementation
strategies (Vol. 2003, No. 22).
Watts, S., Stenner, P., 2012. Theory and Q Methodology: From Stephenson to
Constructionism. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation.
SAGE Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
World Health Organisation, 2007. Global age-friendly cities: A guide. World Health
Organisation.
Samuel Chng is a Research Fellow and heads the Urban Psychology Lab in the Lee Kuan
Yew Centre for Innovative Cities at the Singapore University of Technology and Design. He
is an applied social psychologist and his research focuses on human behaviour and de­
cisions in cities across a range of areas including mobility, sustainability and wellbeing
(human adaptability and resilience). His work is multidisciplinary and applied in nature,
focusing on delivering practical and policy impacts.
Catherine Chang was a former senior research assistant at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for
Innovative Cities at the Singapore University of Technology and Design. She is a human
geographer whose research has focused on the intersections between technology and so­
ciety. Catherine holds an MSc in Social Science of the Internet from the Oxford Internet
Institute at the University of Oxford and a BA (Hons) in Geography from the University of
Cambridge.
Karenza Mosquera is currently an Economist in the Land Transport Authority of Singa­
pore’s Economics Unit under the Policy Division. Her current work areas include con­
ducting research to understand public acceptance and attitudes towards various transport
policies and initiatives (e.g., road repurposing projects, electric vehicles). She aims to
derive insights using data-driven approaches to inform policy and planning decisions.
Wai Yan Leong is Chief Transport Economist/Principal Economist at Singapore’s Land
Transport Authority. He leads a team of economists and behavioural scientists to support
policy decision making through economic analysis and research. Part of the team’s work is
to understand public acceptability of various initiatives launched by the Land Transport
Authority to make Singapore into a “car-lite” nation.