See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360330701

A RAPID EVALUATION TOOL TO DETERMINE SUITABILITY OF ROAD SECTIONS

FOR PEDESTRIANIZATION IN THE PHILIPPINE SETTING

Conference Paper · September 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 112

2 authors:

Konstantine Koh Crispin Emmanuel D. Diaz

University of the Philippines University of the Philippines
6 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    28 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Economic Impact of Pedestrianization of an Area in Metro Cebu View project

Economic Impact of Pedestrianization of an Urban Space in Metro Cebu View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Konstantine Koh on 03 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A RAPID EVALUATION TOOL TO DETERMINE SUITABILITY OF
ROAD SECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANIZATION IN THE PHILIPPINE
SETTING

KONSTANTINE CHUA KOHa, CRISPIN EMMANUEL DIAZb

a,b
School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon
City 1104, Philippines
a
mykonserns@yahoo.com
b
cddiaz@up.edu.ph

Abstract: In recent years, pedestrianization has been espoused as a viable alternative to spur
sustainable social and economic development in local communities. In the Philippines, some
cities or municipalities would like to pedestrianize some road sections, but the local
governments lack the resources and the capability to conduct a thorough evaluation of the
viability of pedestrianization. To fill in this gap, this study explores the development of a
rapid evaluation tool that local governments can use to make a preliminary assessment of the
roads’ suitability for pedestrianization. It is hoped that this tool can help eliminate unviable
candidate road sections early on, so that resources can be allocated towards making more
effective plans for the road sections that were identified as more viable for pedestrianization.

Keywords: pedestrianization, sustainable transportation, inclusive mobility, evaluation tool

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, pedestrianization has been espoused as a viable alternative to spur more
sustainable social and economic development in local communities. In evaluating the
potential benefits of these projects, the most common practice is to use economic evaluation
tools like benefit-cost analysis (Ruffino and Jarre, 2021), while different simulation software
are used to evaluate traffic and environmental impacts (Giannakos, 2017).
However, these tools and techniques can be considered highly technical and require
many resources for data gathering and analysis that many local governments in the
Philippines do not possess. In the worst-case scenario, if the local government goes ahead
with pedestrianizing a road without conducting any rational evaluation, it may cause
unwanted negative impacts to the community (Gungor and Guzelergene, 2017), negating the
anticipated benefits and may even cost more to reverse the effects.
It is in this context that a preliminary study was made to develop a simple but robust
evaluation tool that local governments can use to make a sufficient preliminary assessment of
a road section’s suitability for pedestrianization, whether it meets some basic “warrants”,
before proceeding to more detailed planning and analysis. This tool can help exclude
(obviously) unviable candidate road sections from the start, and thus the limited resources can
be reallocated towards making more effective plans for the more viable road sections. The
main output of this study is to develop an initial version of a rapid evaluation tool for
pedestrianization suitability, test it in a specific Study Area, assess its ease of use and check
the results against the qualitative assessments of some of the stakeholders.
This study was developed as part of a bigger study that looked into the potential
economic impacts of a potential pedestrianization project in a specific Study Area. As such,
the main focus of data collection and analysis is specifically just for the Study Area, while
secondary data from previous studies on pedestrianization projects were used as the basis to
develop a first version of the tool. It is acknowledged that more researches have to be made in
the future to include more areas and more aspects to help further calibrate the said tool.
The paper is further organized as follows: Section 2 summarizes the different warrants
for pedestrianization that have been identified by previous studies and identifies common
patterns to help create a shortlist of potential variables for the tool. Section 3 discusses the
different factors considered in developing the rapid evaluation tool. Section 4 describes the
different components of the draft rapid evaluation tool. Section 5 presents some highlights of
the results of the test application of the draft rapid evaluation tool into a specific case study.
Section 6 assesses the use of the tool based on the case study and its results. Section 7 lists
recommendations on how to further improve the usability of the rapid evaluation tool.

2. WARRANTS FOR PEDESTRIANIZATION

2.1 Purposes of pedestrianization

Pedestrianization in a broad sense is simply closing off a particular road section and reallocate
it for pedestrian use. The closing of a road section can be permanent or part-time, or it can be
a full or partial road closure (reduction of some vehicular lanes). For purposes of this study,
the pedestrianization being referred here is a permanent and full closure.
Although the primary purpose of pedestrianization is to improve walkability conditions,
there are other social and economic benefits for the community as well (Littman, 2003).
Social concerns deal with providing people better and needed facilities for mobility, while
economic concerns deal with spurring local economy by making areas more commercially
attractive and increasing property values in the area. Related to this, in terms of economic
costs, the project should not create more congestion and vehicle operating costs (Koh etal,
2007), so as not to negate the social and economic benefits.

2.2 Review of warrants identified by from other researches

Currently, there is no universal consensus yet on what are the warrants to pedestrianize a road,
since researchers and practitioners believe that different cultures and different settings or
locations would have different pedestrianization needs and objectives and thus would come in
different forms (Elfouly and Aly, 2017). Nonetheless, some common elements have been
identified by researches like Chow Ka Ching (2002), Soni and Soni (2015) and Maritz (2019).
A summary of the common aspects is presented below.

Table 1: Warrants of effective pedestrianization schemes cited from previous studies,

summarized into broad aspects
Aspect General description
Commercial Having enough demand and
aspects commercial offerings that
can attract more people
Social aspects Pertain to providing social
benefits to the community
Warrant
1) critical mass of users; high volume of users
2) pedestrian-oriented shops and services and a mix of uses
3) topic and gimmicks for individual areas
4) safety and security reasons: streets with schools,
hospitals, old age homes
5) road section to be pedestrianized has many residents
6) reclaiming public space for public welfare; currently
lacking public spaces
 Aspect General description Warrant
Transportation Pertains to different 7) sufficient parking space at periphery
aspects components of the 8) sufficient public transport options in the vicinity of the
transportation network pedestrianized road
9) does not disrupt emergency vehicle access
10) does not disrupt logistical needs of businesses
11) street width of road section is not sufficient or
appropriate for motorized transport
12) surrounding road network is able to accommodate
potential rerouting of vehicles
13) road section has low traffic volumes to be rerouted
Built Pertain to the different 14) cleanliness
Environment physical conditions and 15) attractive features and street furniture
Aspects features of the built 16) artistic and cultural amenities
environment. 17) recreation amenities (e.g. parks and playgrounds)
18) well-preserved historical and architectural buildings or
features
19) current sidewalks or pedestrian walkways are in poor
condition, and are in need of an upgrade
Macro Pertain to the overall macro 20) pollution level (Air Quality Index: AQI) is in
Environment environment unacceptable range
Aspects 21) congestion level-of-service is in unacceptable range
22) noise level is in unacceptable range

To help select from the above items the factors to be used for the rapid evaluation tool,
some criteria were established, as enumerated below. If a factor meets at least two of the
criteria below, they were considered for inclusion into the rapid evaluation tool. In addition,
redundant criteria were removed or merged with other similar criteria.
a. Criteria is measurable or quantifiable.
b. Data to be used for evaluation of the criteria is available, either through secondary
sources or simple surveys, or surmises from other related data.
c. Criteria is not a basic social service or condition that should have been addressed by
the government in the first place. (e.g. safety/security, flooding, cleanliness)
d. Criteria is not a design feature or amenity that can be part of the actual
pedestrianization project.
To further validate the selection of criteria, an online survey among experts and
practitioners from different fields (i.e. architects, urban planners, transport experts, urban
development professionals) was carried out. They were asked to rank the above twenty-two
variables according to what they perceive is important when deciding to pedestrianize a road
section or not.
Based on the above criteria and the online survey, the following indicators were selected,
with some corresponding explanations:

Table 2: Shortlisted indicators for suitability for pedestrianization

1) critical mass of users  There should be a minimum threshold of people who will actually use the
pedestrianized portion of the road to justify heavy investment and
resources. (This threshold can vary for different areas.)
2) pedestrian-oriented  Shops catering more to walking customers will likely be more benefitted by
shops and services and a pedestrianization. Examples are retail goods and food-and-beverage shops.
mix of uses  The presence of pedestrian-oriented shops can help generate economic
activities.
4) safety and security  Pedestrianizing a road section can minimize potential vehicle-pedestrian
reasons: streets with conflicts, thus reducing accident rates.
schools, hospitals, old  The more vulnerable population, like children and the elderly, are in need
age homes of better protection from vehicular traffic when walking.
 5) road section to be
pedestrianized has many
residents
6) reclaiming public space
for public welfare;
currently lacking public
spaces
7) sufficient parking space
at periphery for
passenger and goods
8) presence of good public
transport within walking
or bicycling distance
11) street width of road
section is not sufficient
or appropriate for
motorized transport
12) surrounding road
network is able to
accommodate potential
rerouting of vehicles
16) artistic and cultural
amenities
19) current sidewalks or
pedestrian walkways are
in poor condition
 Residential areas typically have a majority of the people walking,
especially young children and the elderly.
 A pedestrianized area offers an alternative public open space where people
can interact, and for rest and recreation.
 Some may still need to arrive by car and would need parking spaces.
 Some establishments would require parking area for delivery.
 Parking would also be needed for emergency purposes.
NOTE: Serves as a proxy for Amenity #9 and #10
 Since people will be mostly walking in the pedestrianized area, public
transport is the most compatible access mode to the pedestrianized area.
 High-capacity and high-quality public transport modes would reduce the
need for private vehicles.
 Narrow roads which would have difficulty accommodating cars and heavy
traffic may be better suited for walking. Conversely, wider roads are
usually best for carrying heavy vehicular traffic.
 A grid-like network can easily allow some road sections to be closed off
and reroute vehicular traffic without affecting overall traffic much.
 Parallel streets should also have sufficient capacity to absorb potential
rerouting of vehicular traffic.
NOTE: Serves as a proxy for Amenity #9 and #10
 Interesting cultural, heritage and tourist spots generate foot traffic.
 Heritage and tourist spots are better appreciated by walking, hence more
compatible for pedestrianization.
NOTE: Serves as a proxy for Amenity #18
 Walkways in poor conditions have a higher need for an upgrade that can be
addressed by pedestrianization.
 Some indicators of poor conditions are narrow sidewalk widths, poor
pavement quality and presence of many obstructions along the sidewalks

2.3 Synthesis

The response of the respondents in the ranking of the variables also revealed some patterns in
the ranking. Based on this, the abovementioned factors were then further grouped together
according to similarity of theme, as shown below. This will form the basis for developing the
rapid evaluation tool.

Table 3: Grouping of factors for suitability for pedestrianization based on common themes
In need of improved 6) reclaiming public space for public welfare
ped facilities 19) current sidewalks or pedestrian walkways are in poor condition
- narrow sidewalk width or insufficient walkway capacity
- poor pavement quality
- many obstructions
High share of people 1) critical mass of users
in need of ped 4) safety and security reasons: streets with schools, hospitals, old age homes
facilities 5) road section to be pedestrianized has many residents
Need to boost 1) critical mass of users
economic activities 2) pedestrian-oriented shops and services and a mix of uses
- retail goods, food-and-beverage businesses, etc.
16) tourist, heritage and cultural attractions (combination of amenities #16, 17, 18)
Compatible road 12) surrounding road network is able to accommodate potential rerouting of vehicles
network 30) street geometry and width are more appropriate for motorized transport
Integration with other 6) sufficient parking space at periphery for passenger and goods
modes 31) presence of good public transport within walking or bicycling distance
3. DEVELOPING THE RAPID EVALUATION TOOL

3.1 Options for Format of the Tool

Currently, the most common tool that is used to assess a road section’s suitability for
pedestrianization is benefit-cost analysis. However, this type of analysis covers all the
wide-ranging effects and it will be difficult to costly and time-consuming to gather sufficient
data to conduct such an analysis. Additionally, it is hard to isolate the contribution of
pedestrianization itself from the contribution of the other factors (e.g. policy, macro-economy,
people behavior, etc.) (Hass-Klau, 1993). Some researches which have done
post-implementation evaluation of pedestrianization projects have actually used simple and
practical indicators instead of large-scale performance indicators in consideration of time,
budget and ‘statistical accuracy’. (Hass-Klau, 1993. NYCDOT, 2013)
The closest and simplest evaluation tool that is related to pedestrianization that can be
found is the “Global Walkability Index (GWI)” developed by Holly Krambeck for the World
Bank (2006). The GWI tool lists a set of indicators which is given a score from 1 to 5 for each
road section. A score of 5 indicates very good conditions, while a score of 1 indicates very
poor conditions (See sample in Figure 1 below). The chosen indicators are a combination of
qualitative and quantitative factors, covering aspects like traffic conditions, road conditions
and amenities present. Once each indicator has been assigned a score, the scores are then
averaged to have a final score for the surveyed road section. In case of multiple road sections
to be studied, the final scores of each road section are averaged to get a general score of
walkability for that area. Because of the simplicity and robustness of this tool, it was used as a
template to develop the rapid evaluation tool for pedestrianization suitability.

Figure 1. Sample of Likert scale used for the ‘pavement quality’ factor in the Global
Walkability Index Survey (GWI) Implementation Guide
Source: Krambeck (2006)

3.2 Categorizing and organizing the variables

In typical economic evaluation of transportation projects, benefits and costs are first
identified and then summed separately before dividing one over the other to get a benefit-cost
ratio. To approximate this pattern, the proposed tool will group factors into similar themes of
benefits and costs. Benefits relate to addressing pressing or critical needs of the people
through a pedestrianization project. Thus, the benefit aspect is hereby termed as ‘Significant
public need’. Costs here pertain to the different traffic impacts as a result of the
pedestrianization project, like traffic delays, additional vehicle operating costs, etc. A good
pedestrianization project should aim to lessen these costs so that the benefits are maximized.
This could be achieved if the road network and transport facilities around the pedestrianized
area is able to handle the trip demand by having sufficient capacity and layout. Thus, the cost
aspect of ‘Traffic impacts’ is hereby termed as ‘Suitable transport system’.
By using these two categories, the premise being forwarded by this study is that a
particular road section’s suitability for pedestrianization requires a combination of having a
legitimate public need for a pedestrianization project to address some social and economic
concerns, and at the same time having suitable transport infrastructure and facilities to avoid
or minimize potential traffic impacts.
The shortlisted five variable categories in Table 3 in Section 2.3 were then grouped
under these two broad categories. For ‘Significant public need’, the variables are: 1) In need
of improved ped facilities; 2) High share of people in need of ped facilities; and 3) Need to
boost economic activities. For ‘Suitable transport system, the variables are: 4) Compatible
road network; and 5) Integration with other modes.
Detailed descriptions of each criterion and sub-criterion are shown in the section below.

3.2.1 Significant Public Need [PN]

Table 4. List of sub-criteria for Public Need

(a) In need of improved ped (b) High share of people in
facilities [IPF] need of ped facilities [HSP] activities [BEA]
The worse the current pedestrian
facilities are, the more urgent the
need to introduce improvements.
(a.1) Narrow sidewalk
width
The higher the share of sidewalks
with narrow widths, the fewer the
space available for the pedestrians,
thus the greater the need for
pedestrian facilities.
(a.2) Poor sidewalk
conditions
The worse the conditions are, the
greater the need for better
pedestrian facilities. Poor
conditions would include poor
pavement quality, uneven surfaces
and presence of many obstructions.
(a.3) Lack of public open
spaces
The lesser the area of open spaces
there are within the vicinity of the
road section, the more urgent the
need for more open spaces for the
general public.
(c) Need to boost economic
The more people that are walking
along the road section, the greater
the need for more and better
pedestrian facilities. Additionally,
the higher the presence of
vulnerable population that are
walking, the greater the need.
(b.1) High pedestrian
volumes
The higher the combined pedestrian
volumes, the greater the need for
higher-capacity walking facilities,
thus the greater the need for
pedestrian facilities.
(b.2) High residential area
share
The more residential areas there are
along a road section, the more
likely there will be children and
elderly that have walking as a main
mode, thus the greater the need for
safe walkways.
(b.3) Large school
population
The higher the school population
there are, the more young people
there will be walking on this road
section, thus the greater the need
for safe walkways.
The higher the presence of
pedestrian-oriented trip attractors,
the greater the need for good
facilities to encourage more
walking to help sustain these
businesses that can help make
project more economically
sustainable in the long run.
(c.1) High pedestrian
volumes
The higher the foot traffic, the
more opportunities for walk-in
customers to the different shops
along the road section, thus
increasing the likelihood for more
economic activities.
(c.2) High retail area share
The more retail areas there are, the
more foot traffic that would be
needed to help sustain the
businesses, thus the higher the need
for pedestrianization.
(c.3) Existence of tourism,
heritage and cultural
sites
The more heritage and cultural sites
there are, the greater the need for
more foot traffic to visit these
places to sustain these sites.
3.2.2 Suitable transport system [TS]

Table 5. List of sub-criteria for Suitable Transport System (TS)

(d) Compatible road network [CRN] (e) Integration with other transport modes
[ITM]
The more matching the size of the road is with the
human scale, the more suitable it is for
pedestrianization. Additionally, the better the layout
of the surrounding road network, then the lesser the
traffic impact it will create, thus the higher the
suitability for pedestrianization.
(d.1) Narrow roads; road more suited for
pedestrian movement
Roads with narrow widths are not ideal for vehicles
and are better suited for walking. Thus, the narrower
the road right-of-way, the more suitable it is for a
pedestrianization scheme.
(d.2) Presence of parallel streets
Parallel streets allow the rerouting of traffic away
from the area to be pedestrianized without causing
long detours. Thus, the more and the wider the
parallel streets there are, the higher the capacity to
accommodate the rerouted traffic, thus the more
supportive is the road network for pedestrianization.
(d.3) Road functional classification
Arterial roads mainly serve through traffic with
fast-moving speeds and are generally not suited for
pedestrianization. Local roads mainly serve
slow-moving traffic and are more compatible with
walking.
The more integrated walking is with other transport
modes, the easier is the accessibility to the site. Thus,
more people can visit the pedestrianized area. Hence,
the more integrated is the site with other modes, the
more suited it is for pedestrianization.
(e.1) Capacity of rail transport
The higher the capacity of the rail transport in the
vicinity of the area, the better it can accommodate
potential high trip demand to the site without relying
on private vehicles.
(e.2) Capacity of PT road transport
The higher the capacity of the road transport system
near the area, the better it can accommodate potential
high trip demand to the site without relying on private
vehicles. At the same time, the better it can connect to
surrounding communities.
(e.3) Parking within vicinity
Off-street vehicular parking are those people who
really need to bring their cars for special needs, like
logistics, emergency and other special needs. Thus,
the more off-street parking slots there are, the more
integrated it is to walking.

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIANIZATION SUITABILITY

RAPID EVALUATION TOOL (PEDSRET)

4.1 General description of the format

Using a multicriteria analysis format similar to the “GWI” format, a rapid evaluation tool for
suitability for pedestrianization is made, hereby named “PEDSRET” with the basic
framework shown in Figure 2 below.

Significant Public Need [PN] Suitable Transport System [TS]

Criteria (a) Criteria (b) Criteria (c) Criteria (d)
sub-criteria a.1 score sub-criteria b.1 score sub-criteria c.1 score sub-criteria d.1 score
sub-criteria a.2 score sub-criteria b.2 score sub-criteria c.2 score sub-criteria d.2 score
sub-criteria a.3 score sub-criteria b.3 score sub-criteria c.3 score sub-criteria d.3 score
score of criteria (a) score of criteria (b) score of criteria (c) score of criteria (d)
= average (a.1, a.2, a.3) = average (b.1, b.2, b.3) = average (c.1, c.2, c.3) = average (d.1, d.2, d.3)
Score of PN = average (a, b) Score of TS = average (c, d)
Figure 2. Procedure for computing scores for the Pedestrianization Suitability Rapid
Evaluation Tool (PEDSRET) for each road section
 Scores for ‘Significant public need’ (PN) will be computed separately with those for
‘Suitable transport system’ (TS), to avoid one score from “masking” the effects of the other.
For this study, criteria are defined as general factors which help explain either ‘Significant
public need’ (PN) or ‘Suitable transport system’ (TS), while sub-criteria are the more concrete
indicators of the criteria. For this tool, all criteria and sub-criteria are assumed to be of equal
weights.
It is recommended that there be at least two criteria for each category of PN and TS to
provide more accurate predictability. For the sub-criterion, the ideal minimum is three, while
five is considered to be maximum. This is in consideration of balancing statistical accuracy
and ease in gathering of data.

4.2 Scoring system

Each sub-criterion will be scored using a Likert scale ranging from 0 to +5, with higher values
indicating conditions that are more suitable for pedestrianization. A score of “0” is given for
conditions that are not suitable for pedestrianization. For some items of the sub-criteria, “NA”
(not applicable) is assigned instead of “0” in case that particular sub-criterion is not present,
so that the “0” value will not be included in the computation for averages.
The scores for each sub-criterion will be averaged to get a score for the criterion. Then
the scores of each criterion will likewise be averaged to get a final score, one for PN and
another for TS. Once the final scores for have been computed, they can be assessed using the
scale shown in Table 2 below. For this table, 3.0 is set as the “passing threshold”.

Table 6. Final numerical scores and corresponding evaluation

Score Significant public need (PN) Suitable transport system (TS)
4.0 to 5.0 Very much needed Very much suitable
3.0 to 3.99 Highly needed Highly suitable
2.0 to 2.99 Moderately needed Moderately suitable
1.0 to 1.99 Low need Slightly suitable
0 to 0.99 Very low need Not suitable

Figure 3. Interpretation of the results of the PEDSRET

It should be noted that high scores on both PN and TS do not automatically mean that
the pedestrianization scheme will be a success. It is only taken to initially indicate that the
particular road section seems more suited for pedestrianization because there is an obvious
need and the surrounding transport network can handle transport concerns. Thus, a more
detailed study can be justified to further quantify the costs and benefits, and prepare a
corresponding implementation plan. Road sections with low scores mean they have failed
basic warrants and thus need more investigation before any pedestrianization scheme is to be
considered. Figure 3 indicates one way to interpret the combination of the two final scores
and the possible actions.

4.3 Description of the Criteria, Sub-Criteria Used and the Specific Indicators to be Used

Based on the indicators mentioned in Chapter 2.3, the different sub-criteria to be used for the
PEDSRET have been identified and grouped, and are shown in Figure 4 below. A short
description of each sub-criterion is presented below, while the detailed scoring system for
each sub-criterion is presented individually in the Appendices.

Figure 4. Selected criteria and sub-criteria used for the PEDSRET

Shown in Table 7 below are the specific indicators that will be used to score each of the
sub-criterion. These indicators were chosen based on their availability from secondary sources
or ease in primary data gathering.

Table 7. Specific indicators to be used for each sub-criterion

Criteria and sub-criteria
(a) In need of improved ped
facilities [IPF]
(a.1) Narrow sidewalk width
(a.2) Poor sidewalk conditions
(a.3) Lack of public open spaces
(b) High share of people in need
of ped facilities [HSP]
(b.1) High ped volumes
Indicator
% of sidewalks with widths less
than 2m
% of sidewalks in poor condition
Combined area of public open
spaces within 250 meters
Daily pedestrian volumes,
combined for all directions
Source
Road inventory; actual
observation
Road inventory; actual
observation
Actual observation; desktop
research using satellite images
Pedestrian counts
 Criteria and sub-criteria Indicator
(b.2) High residential area share % of area that are residential in
usea
(b.3) Large school population Combined population of all
schools along a road section
(c) Need to boost economic
activities [BEA]
(c.1) High ped volumes Daily pedestrian volumes,
combined for all directions
(c.2) High retail area share % of area that are retail in usea
(c.3) Tourism and cultural sites Presence of significant tourism,
heritage and cultural sites
(d) Compatible road network
(d.1) Narrow road ROW No. of traffic lanesb
(d.2) Presence of parallel streets Presence of streets running
parallel or almost parallel to the
road section; number of lanes in
the parallel streets
(d.3) Non-arterial/collector road Functional classification of the
road
(e) Integration with other
transport modes
(e.1) Capacity of rail transport Combined capacity of all rail
transport (pax per day)
(e.2) Capacity of PT road transport Combined capacity of all
road-based PT modes (pax per
day)
(e.3) Vehicular parking w/in Vehicular parking slots within 500
vicinity meters
Notes:
a - The percentages are the shares of the area of each land use type over the total floor area in a road section. The
area may be just the lot area in case of open lots or total gross floor areas in case of covered and/or multi-storey
buildings. In case specific areas cannot be obtained due to absence of floor plans, interpolation can be made
through a combination of satellite images, field surveys and interviews with building owners.
b - Each lane is assumed to be 3 meters in width
Source
Actual observation; available
floor plans; desktop research
using satellite images
Enrollment records from the
schools
Pedestrian counts
Actual observation; available
floor plans; desktop research
using satellite images
Actual observation; desktop
research; list from Department of
Tourism
Actual observation; road
inventory; desktop research via
Google Streetview
Actual observation; road
inventory; desktop research via
online maps
Desktop research via online maps;
road inventory
Rail agency records; previous
transport studies
Traffic counts and occupancy
counts; LTFRB records; previous
transport studies
Actual observation; desktop
research via online maps

5. APPLICATION OF THE PEDSRET TO A CASE STUDY

5.1 Overview

In 2019, the Region 7 branch of National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) initiated
a study to look into the potential pedestrianization of some parts of Downtown Cebu City as a
way to boost the local economy in that area. The Study Area is shown in the map below. The
Study Area is comprised of 16 streets (with aggregate length of 5.7 km), including major
streets such as Colon St and Osmena Blvd. Among the prominent landmarks found here are
Magellan’s Cross, Basilica de Santo Nino, Metropolitan Cathedral, Cebu City Hall and
University of Visayas. Carbon Market and Fort San Pedro are also found within the vicinity.
The Study Area is part of the old city center in Cebu City, dating back to the Spanish
and American periods. Some traces of its rich historical and cultural heritage can still be seen
from the structures that remain to this day, including some of the grandest theaters built
during the American period. However, as time progressed, some of these structures became
rundown or had already been modified to other uses. Other structures in the area have been
abandoned or remained idle for many years. Some of the old establishments still remain in
varying physical conditions. Currently, the entire area is considered to be a melting pot of
bargain-buy retail stores and wholesale shops.

Figure 5. The delineated Study Area for the Metro Cebu Downtown Pedestrianization Study
Source: Planades (2020)

5.2 Gathering of Data

To help supply some basic information as inputs to the PEDSRET, various data gathering
activities were conducted, as shown in Table 21. Since the evaluation for pedestrian
suitability is conducted on a per road section basis, each road section within the Study Area
was assigned a code, as shown in Figure 6.

Table 7. Data gathering activities conducted for the Cebu Downtown Pedestrianization Study
Data collection Data to be gathered
Archival research (b.3) Combined population of schools (d.1) No. of traffic lanes
(c.3) Presence of significant tourism, (d.3) Functional classification of
heritage and cultural sites the road
Ocular observation (d.1) No. of traffic lanes
Desktop research (a.3) Combined area of public open (b.2) % of area that are residential
(Google Maps) spaces within 250 m (c.2) % of area that are retail
(d.1) No. of traffic lanes (e.3) Vehicular parking slots within
(d.2) Presence of parallel streets 500 m
Pedestrian counts (b.1) Daily pedestrian volumes
PT Inventory (e.1) Combined capacity of all rail transport
(e.2) Combined capacity of all road-based PT modes
Land use and (a.1) % of sidewalks with widths less (c.3) Presence of significant
sidewalk inventory than 2m tourism and cultural sites
(a.2) % of sidewalks in poor condition (e.3) Vehicular parking slots within
(b.2) % of area that are residential 500 m
(c.2) % of area that are retail
 In terms of efficiency of data collection, most of the data requirements for the
sub-criteria were easy enough to collect. Data about the roads and routes were readily
available from secondary sources and a quick ocular inspection helped easily verify these data.
Data on land use and sidewalk conditions were slightly more difficult to collect, as it involved
more resources to conduct the inventories. The more tedious work involved was actually not
the data gathering itself, but the processing of the results from the land use and sidewalk
inventory. It required more time to clean up the field data and then assign categories to
standardize the answers. Nonetheless, it is expected that future processing of data about the
land use and sidewalks will be faster, due to the benefit of having already done a pilot run.

Figure 6. Coding guide used to identify each road section in the Study Area
Source: Planades (2020)

In addition, the Study Team conducted a focus group discussion (FGD) with some of
the stakeholders in the area. One of the items discussed was what were some of the road
sections that they think would be ideal and not ideal for pedestrianization. Some of the
attendees have identified the road sections in front of historical or tourist attractions would be
more ideal for pedestrianization, like Osmena Blvd in front of Basilica de Santo Nino and P.
Burgos in front of Metropolitan Cathedral. A few participants also mentioned that there was a
proposal to pedestrianize Colon St to help revive the street to its glory days (Silva 2016). On
the other hand, some of the respondents mentioned that road sections with heavy traffic and
many public transport routes (such as Colon St) are not ideal for pedestrianization.
The respondents were also asked what were some of the critical elements for a
successful pedestrianization project. Most of the participants agree that pedestrianization
alone does not guarantee that more people will come to the area, and would depend more if
the existing urban environmental conditions have been improved, like safety/security,
flooding and waste management. They also mentioned that there needs to be good physical
connectivity between the pedestrianized space and the adjacent land uses.

5.3 Results of the PEDSRET for the Study Area

Note: The PEDSRET described in this paper is an updated version of the tool that was
actually used for the study conducted for NEDA in 2019. The results below used the most
recent version.
5.3.1. Highest scores for each criterion

For the criterion of “Bad state of ped facilities” [IPF], the section with the highest score is
Mabini St MB1. This means that since it has the worst state of ped facilities, it has a high
need for pedestrianization. This is mainly due to the fact that 86% of the sidewalks in MB1
are less than 2 meters in width, and there is only about 800 square meters of open spaces
within 250 meters vicinity.

Table 8. Road sections with the highest and lowest scores for “IPF”
Road Section Code MB1 MB3 PG1
Street Name Mabini St. Mabini St. P. Gomez St.
Road section Btwn Zulueta St and Btwn Jereza & Btwn Jakosalem &
Colon St P. Gomez P. Burgos
(a.1) % with sidewalk width <2m 5 5 4
(a.2) % poor sidewalk conditions 2 2 2
(a.3) Lack of public open spaces 4 3 4
SCORE 3.7 3.3 3.3

For the criterion of “High share of people in need of ped facilities” [HSP], the sections
with the highest scores are Colon St CO3 and Mabini St MB3, each with a score of 3.3. This
means that these road sections have a high need for pedestrianization, since they have a high
share of people that needs safe and wide walkway facilities. In the case of CO3, this is due to
a combination of high ped volumes and presence of a university. In the case of MB3, this is
due to the presence of a university and an average-sized residential neighborhood.

Table 7. Road sections with the highest and lowest scores for “HSU”
Road Section Code CO3 MB3
Street Name Colon St. Mabini St.
Road section Btwn Junquera St & Btwn Jereza &
Jakosalem St P. Gomez
(b.1) High ped volumes 5 2
(b.2) High residential area share 0 3
(b.3) Large school population 5 5
SCORE 3.3 3.3

For the criterion of “Need to boost economic activities” [BEA], three sections have the
highest scores of 4.3, namely Colon St CO1, Colon St CO2 and Osmena Blvd OS4. This
means that these road sections have a high need to boosting economic activities, since all of
these road sections have daily ped volumes greater than 20,000 and have retail area shares
greater than 75%.

Table 9. Road sections with the highest scores for “BEA”

Road Section Code CO1 CO2 OS4
Street Name Colon St. Colon St. Osmena Blvd.
Road section Btwn Osmena Blvd & Btwn Pelaez St & Btwn Jakosalem &
Pelaez St Junquera St P. Burgos
(c.1) High ped volumes 5 5 5
(c.2) High retail area share 5 5 4
(c.3) Tourism and cultural sites 3 3 4
SCORE 4.3 4.3 4.3
 For the criterion of “Compatible Road Network” [CRN], there are five sections with the
highest scores of 4.3, namely P. Gomez St, P. Burgos MB6 and all three road sections of
Gonzalez St. All of these road sections have parallel streets of sufficient capacity on both
sides and except for P. Burgos, are local streets.

Table 10. Road sections with the highest and lowest scores for “CRN”
Road Section Code MB3 PG1 GO1,2,3
Street Name P. Burgos St. P. Gomez St. Gonzalez St.
Road section Btwn Osmena Blvd & Btwn Jakosalem & P. Btwn Osmena Blvd &
Magallanes Burgos MC Briones
(d.1) Narrow road ROW 5 3 3
(d.2) Presence of parallel streets 5 5 5
(d.3) Non-arterial/collector road 3 5 5
SCORE 4.3 4.3 4.3

For the criterion of “Integration with other modes” [IOM], there were five road sections
which got the highest scores of 3.0. They are two road sections from Colon St (CO2 and
CO3) and three sections of MC Briones (BR1, BR2 and BR3). Their high scores is mainly
due to high scores for parking availability.

Table 11. Road sections with the highest and lowest scores for “IOM”
Road Section Code CO2,3 BR1,2,3
Street Name Colon St. MC Briones St.
Road section Btwn Pelaez St & Btwn F. Gonzalez St
Jakosalem St & Lapu-lapu St.
(e.1) Capacity of rail transport 0 0
(e.2) Capacity of road transport 2 2
(e.3) Vehicular parking 4 4
SCORE 2.0 2.0

5.3.2. Road sections with potential for pedestrianization

None of the road sections were able to meet the minimum passing mark of 3.0 for both
‘Public need’ and ‘Transport system’. However, there are still some road sections that can be
considered for pedestrianization because they passed the threshold of 3.0 for ‘Public need’.
They are as follows:

Table 12. Road sections that have some potential for pedestrianization based on PEDSRET
Code & Section (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) PN Score TS Score
Street IPF HSP BEA CRN IOM (average (average
Name of a,b,c) of d,e)
CO3 Btwn 3.1 2.0
Colon Junquera St & 3.0 3.3 3.0 2.0 2.0 Highly Moderately
St Jakosalem St Needed suitable
MB3
Btwn Jereza &
3.1 1.5
Mabini
P. Gomez 3.3 3.3 2.7 3.0 0.0 Highly Slightly
St needed suitable

Colon St CO3 have scores greater than 3.0 for all three criteria of Public Need, as this is
pulled up mainly by high ped volumes, large school population, and high retail share. At the
same time, although its sidewalks are currently wide enough, the physical conditions are poor
and there is no public space available nearby.

Table 12. Breakdown of scores for ‘Public need’ for Road Section CO3
(a) In need of improved
ped facilities
(a.1) Narrow sidewalk
width
(a.2) Poor sidewalk
conditions
(a.3) Lack of public open
spaces
SCORE for (a)
Average (a, b, c)
Score (b) High share of people
in need of ped
facilities
(b.1) High ped volumes
0 5
(b.2) High residential area
4 share
(b.3) Large school
5 population
3.0 Score for (b) 3.3
3.1 Assessment: Highly needed
Score (c) Need to boost Score
economic activities
(c.1) High ped volumes
5
(c.2) High retail area
0 share
4
(c.3) Tourism, heritage
5 and culture sites
0
Score for (c) 3.0

The above average score of Mabini MB3 for ‘Public Need’ is due to high scores for ‘In
need of improved ped facilities’ and ‘High share of people in ped facilities’. Its high score can
be mainly attributed to having a high percentage of sidewalks that are less than 2 meters and a
large school population. It has average scores for high residential share, high retail share,
presence of tourism/cultural sites and lack of public open spaces.

Table 13. Breakdown of scores for ‘Public need’ for Road Section MB3
(a) In need of improved
ped facilities
(a.1) Narrow sidewalk
width
(a.2) Poor sidewalk
conditions
(a.3) Lack of public open
spaces
SCORE for (a)
Average (a, b, c)
Score (b) High share of people
in need of ped
facilities
(b.1) High ped volumes
5 2
(b.2) High residential area
2 share
(b.3) Large school
3 population
3.3 Score for (b) 3.3
3.1 Assessment: Highly needed
Score (c) Need to boost Score
economic activities
(c.1) High ped volumes
2
(c.2) High retail area
3 share
3
(c.3) Tourism, heritage
5 and culture sites
3
Score for (c) 2.7

Although these road sections have above average scores for ‘Public need’, they have
poor scores for ‘Traffic system’. In Colon St’s case, this is mainly due to its nature as a
national road having a wide road right-of-way that is better suited for arterial traffic rather
than local traffic. Additionally, there are no high-capacity public transport system in its
vicinity, as the available public transport modes are only public utility jeepneys (PUJ’s).

Table 14. Breakdown of scores for “Transport System” for Road Section CO3
(d) Compatible road network Score (e) Integration with other modes Score
(d.1) Narrow road ROW 0 (e.1) Capacity of rail transport 0
(d.2) Presence of parallel streets 5 (e.2) Capacity of road transport 2
(d.3) Non-arterial road 1 (e.3) Vehicular parking 4
SCORE for (d) 2.0 Score for (e) 2.0
Average (a, b, c) 2.0 Assessment: Moderately suitable
 In the case of Mabini St MB3, it has very poor integration with other modes, as neither
public transport modes or parking areas are present. However, it scored above average for
compatible road network.

Table 15. Breakdown of scores for “Transport System” for Road Section MB3
(d) Compatible road network Score (e) Integration with other modes Score
(d.1) Narrow road ROW 3 (e.1) Capacity of rail transport 0
(d.2) Presence of parallel streets 3 (e.2) Capacity of road transport 0
(d.3) Non-arterial road 3 (e.3) Vehicular parking 0
SCORE for (d) 3.0 Score for (e) 0.0
Average (a, b, c) 1.5 Assessment: Slightly suitable

6. CONCLUSIONS

This study attempted to develop a first version of a rapid evaluation tool (PEDSRET) that can
be used by local governments to make a preliminary determination of road sections that are
suitable for pedestrianization. Based on the application of the PEDSRET to the Study Area of
Downtown Cebu City, the tool was able to identify the same road sections that stakeholders
identified as having potential for pedestrianization (which are those near heritage sites and
high retail section). Similarly, the tool also identified those road sections that are not ideal for
pedestrianization (streets with currently not much pedestrian traffic and low retail uses). From
this, it can be said that the tool is consistent with an alternative scoping method (stakeholder
FGD or KII - which tend to be highly politicized, especially if there are contending
stakeholders), but easier to implement.
In terms of efficiency of data collection, most of the data for the sub-criteria were easy
enough to collect. Data about the roads and routes were readily available from secondary
sources, while data on land use and sidewalk conditions were moderately more difficult to
collect since it involved actual surveys. The more tedious work of processing the results from
the land use and sidewalk inventories can be expected to become easier in the future since the
classifications/categories have now been set with this pilot study.
Once the data have been obtained and categorized, it was easy to score the individual
sub-criteria following the provided scoring system, especially through the use of spreadsheet
programs which computed the scoring automatically. Overall, the entire process from data
gathering to scoring can be deemed easy enough for a typical local government to implement
to conduct rapid evaluations of road sections in their area for suitability for pedestrianization.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Proceed with a More Detailed Study

For the case application of the tool in Downtown Cebu City, the scores of the PEDSRET are
fairly indicative of the pedestrianization suitability of the road sections in that study area, such
that there is enough confidence to suggest that the government proceed with a more in-depth
feasibility study for the planning of the identified suitable road sections. Such a study may
include preparing a masterplan which will the basis for preliminary costs, doing more detailed
surveys and computations on potential revenues, economic benefits and the like. Key success
indicators would also have to be identified for monitoring and evaluation purposes. The
results of this detailed study can then be compared with the initial results of the PEDSRET to
see how well the tool anticipates the outcomes. However, whether these road sections will
actually yield positive economic benefits and create minimal traffic-related economic costs is
something that will ultimately require the actual implementation of the pedestrianization
project to be seen.

7.2 Replication to Other Study Areas and Evaluation of the Tool

While initial results of this study indicate that the tool was able to come up with the same road
sections that were deemed as ‘pedestrianizable’ by the local stakeholders, it remains to be
seen whether this tool can produce the same results in other areas. Thus, it is best if the tool
can be tested to different areas in the Philippines, covering varying population densities,
income classes and land use characteristics to test its implementability in varying planning
contexts. This is another way to test the ease of using the tool by different types of users.
More detailed analysis can also be done for cases of actual implementations of
pedestrianization and “a priori” analysis using the tool. The comparison of results will help
further establish the usability of the tool’s format for future analysis of pedestrianization
suitability of other sites.
As to whether the tool is really accurate in its prediction of road sections that can
become successful pedestrianization schemes that will require a multi-sectoral long-term
study. The pedestrianization project has to be implemented in the first place, and different
indicators have to be monitored for a certain period of time to conclude whether the
pedestrianization scheme is successful or not. The results of this long-term study will then be
compared with the results of the PEDSRET to calibrate it into a truly cost-effective tool for
assessing the potential for success of pedestrianization.

7.3 Fine-tuning the Criteria, Sub-Criteria and the Calibration of the Items

The criteria and sub-criteria that were selected for this initial PEDSRET was based on a
combination of results from previous studies, as well as inputs from local experts and
stakeholders. The current form of the tool is still relatively rough, and is meant to be an initial
version specifically used for the Metro Cebu Study. More research and study are needed in
order to validate the appropriateness and completeness of the criteria as basis for making
predictions of an area’s suitability for pedestrianization, or if there are other factors that needs
to also be included. More studies can be made to prepare an a priori PEDSRET rating and
then compare it with post-implementation results. If enough studies can be done, then
statistical models might be used to verify the appropriateness of factors of pedestrianization
suitability.
Furthermore, with more case studies and further statistical analysis, the scoring system
for each sub-criterion may also be re-calibrated to achieve better consistency with the final
result of an implemented pedestrianization. Statistical techniques can also be used to ascertain
the different thresholds for the Likert scale to correspond to their scores.

REFERENCES

Elfouly, Heba and Aly, Abdel-Gawad (2017). The perceived impact of pedestrianization
on local businesses in Al-Muizz Egypt: A case study. International Journal of
Development and Sustainability, Vol. 6 No. 7, pages 399-411.
Chow Ka Ching, B. (2002) Developing an effective framework for pedestrianization
schemes in Hong Kong. Unpublished Masters Thesis. The University of Hong Kong.
Giannakos, Lazaros etal (2017). Simulating traffic and environmental effects of
pedestrianization and traffic management. A comparison between static and dynamic
traffic assignment. Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 24, pages 313-320.
Gungor, Sertac and Guzelergene, Secil (2017). A Study on The Positive and Negative
Effects of The Pedestrianization of Zafer Square in Konya on Tradespeople and
Users. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies [IJMAS].
Volume 4, No. 1, January-February 017, pages 88-98.
Hass-klau, Carmen (1993) Impact of pedestrianization and traffic calming on retailing: A
review of the evidence from Germany and the UK. Transport Policy Vol. 1 (1), pages
21-31.
Koh, K. Lidasan, H., Diaz, C. (2007). Assessing the Costs of the Pedestrianization of
Avenida in the City of Manila. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation Studies, Vol. 6.
Krambeck, H. (2006) Walkability Index 2006: Pilot Survey Implementation Guide.
Prepared for the World Bank.
Littman, T. (2003). Economic Value of Walkability, Transportation Research Record
1828, Transportation Research Board, pages 3-11.
Maritz, Anneri (2019) Pre-Feasibility Model for the Creation of Green Pedestrian Zones.
Unpublished Masters Thesis. Stellenbosch University
New York City Department of Transportation (2013) The Economic Benefits of
Sustainable Streets,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-str
eets.pdf (accessed 15 July 2019)
Planades (2020). Consulting Services for the Economic Impact of Pedestrianization of an
Urban Space in Metro Cebu, Final Report. Prepared for NEDA Region 7.
Ruffino, Paolo and Jarre, Matteo (2021). Advances in Transport Policy and Planning,
Vol. 7, pages 165-203.
Silva, Victor Anthony (2016) Expert: Pedestrianize to revitalize Colon;
https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/90450/90450
Soni, N. and Soni. N. (2015). Benefits of pedestrianization and warrants to pedestrianize
an area, Land Use Policy 57 (2016), 139–150.
 APPENDICES

Points scoring system used for the PEDSRET

I. Significant Public Need [PN]

(a) In need of improved ped facilities [IPF]

a1. % of sidewalks with less than 2 a2. % of sidewalks with poor conditions
Score Score
meters width
0% - 5% 0 0 - 5% 0
5% - 20% 1 6% - 20% 1
20% - 40% 2 21% - 40% 2
40% - 80% 3 41% - 60% 3
60% - 80% 4 61% - 80% 4
80% - 100% 5 81% - 100% 5

a3. Combined area of parks/ open spaces

Score
(in sq.m.)
Above 5000 0
3001 to 5000 1
2001 to 3000 2
1001 to 2000 3
501 to 1000 4
<500 5

(b) High share of people in need of ped facilities [HSP]

b1 and c1. Daily two-way ped volumes

Score b2. % of area with residential use Score
volume, both sides of the road
0 to 2,500 Very few to none 0 0% - 5% 0
2,501 - 5,000 Few 1 5% - 10% 1
5,001 - 10,000 Average 2 10% - 25% 2
10,001 - 15,000 Above average 3 25% - 50% 3
15,001 - 20,000 High 4 50% - 75% 4
>20,000 Very high 5 75% - 100% 5

b3. Combined school population Score

0 NA
1 – 500 1
500 to 1,000 2
1,000 to 2,500 3
2,500 to 5,000 4
5,000 and above 5

(c) Need to boost economic activities

c1. Daily two-way ped volumes volume,

Score c2. % of area with retail use Score
both sides of the road
0 to 2,500 Very few to none 0 0% - 10% 1
2,501 - 5,000 Few 1 10% - 25% 2
5,001 - 10,000 Average 2 25% - 50% 3
10,001 - 15,000 Above average 3 50% - 75% 4
15,001 - 20,000 High 4 75% - 100% 5
>20,000 Very high 5
 c3. Existence of tourist and heritage sites Score
None 0
Little significance or very few 1
Somewhat significant or few 2
Moderately significant or average 3
Highly significant or many 4
Extremely significant or very many 5

II. Suitable Transport System [TS]

(d) Compatible road network [CRN]

d1. Clear width or number of road d2. Presence of parallel streets

Score Score
lanes*
> 10 m 4 or more lanes 0 No parallel streets on both directions 0
Presence of parallel streets on one direction
6.1 – 10 m 3 lanes 1 1
with only 1 lane
Presence of parallel streets on one direction
with 2 or more lanes; or
3.1 – 6 m 2 lanes 3 3
Presence of parallel streets on both
directions with only 1 lane per direction
Presence of parallel streets on both
0–3m 1 lane only 5 5
directions with 2 or more lanes
* Each lane is assumed to be about 3 meters in width.

d3. Road functional classification Score

Arterial road 1
Collector road 3
Local road 5

(e) Integration with other transport modes [IOM]

e1. Capacity of rail transport within 500 Score e2. Capacity of road-based PT modes Score
meters (peak hour pax) within 500 meters (peak hour pax)
None None 0 0 - 2,500 Very few 0
0 - 5,000 Few 1 2,501 - 5,000 Few 1
5,001 - 15,000 Average 2 5,001 - 10,000 Average 2
15,001 - 30,000 Above average 3 10,001 - 15,000 Above average 3
30,001 - 50,000 High 4 15,001 - 20,000 High 4
> 50,001 Extremely high 5 > 20,001 Extremely high 5

e3. No. of off-street parking slots w/in Score

500m vicinity
0 - 50 0
51 - 100 1
101 - 150 2
151 - 200 3
201 - 250 4
250 and above 5

View publication stats