IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i23p8193-d696399.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conceptualizing Walking and Walkability in the Smart City through a Model Composite w 2 Smart City Utility Index

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Visvizi

    (International Political Economy Department (ZMPE), Institute of International Studies (ISM), SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Al. Niepodległości 162, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland
    Effat College of Business, Effat University, Jeddah 21551, Saudi Arabia)

  • Shahira Assem Abdel-Razek

    (Department of Architectural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Delta University for Science & Technology, Mansoura 11152, Egypt)

  • Roman Wosiek

    (International Political Economy Department (ZMPE), Institute of International Studies (ISM), SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Al. Niepodległości 162, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Radosław Malik

    (International Political Economy Department (ZMPE), Institute of International Studies (ISM), SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Al. Niepodległości 162, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

This paper explores walking and walkability in the smart city and makes a case for their centrality in the debate on the resilience and sustainability of smart cities, as outlined in the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is argued that, while the human/inhabitant-centric paradigm of urban development consolidates, and research on walking, walkability, and pedestrian satisfaction flourishes, the inroads of ICT render it necessary to reflect on these issues in the conceptually- and geographically-delimited space of the smart city. More importantly, it becomes imperative to make respective findings useful and usable for policymakers. To this end, by approaching walking and walkability through the lens of utility, the objective of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework in which the relevance of walking and walkability, hereafter referred to as w 2 , as a distinct subject of research in the smart cities debate is validated. This framework is then employed to construct a model of a composite w 2 smart city utility index. With the focus on the development of the conceptual framework, in which the w 2 utility index is embedded, this paper constitutes the first conceptual step of the composite index development process. The value added of this paper is three-fold: First, the relevance of walking and walkability as a distinct subject of research in the realm of smart cities research is established. Second, a mismatch between end-users’ satisfaction derived from walking and their perception of walkability and the objective factors influencing walking and walkability is identified and conceptualized by referencing the concept of utility. Third, a model smart city w 2 utility index is proposed as a diagnostic and prognostic tool that, in the subsequent stages of research and implementation, will prove useful for decisionmakers and other stakeholders involved in the process of managing smart cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Visvizi & Shahira Assem Abdel-Razek & Roman Wosiek & Radosław Malik, 2021. "Conceptualizing Walking and Walkability in the Smart City through a Model Composite w 2 Smart City Utility Index," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:23:p:8193-:d:696399
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/23/8193/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/23/8193/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Radosław Malik & Anna Visvizi & Małgorzata Skrzek-Lubasińska, 2021. "The Gig Economy: Current Issues, the Debate, and the New Avenues of Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Marsal-Llacuna, Maria-Lluïsa & Colomer-Llinàs, Joan & Meléndez-Frigola, Joaquim, 2015. "Lessons in urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the Smart Cities initiative," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 611-622.
    3. Fancello, Giovanna & Congiu, Tanja & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2020. "Mapping walkability. A subjective value theory approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    4. Arlie Adkins & Carrie Makarewicz & Michele Scanze & Maia Ingram & Gretchen Luhr, 2017. "Contextualizing Walkability: Do Relationships Between Built Environments and Walking Vary by Socioeconomic Context?," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(3), pages 296-314, July.
    5. So-Hyun Park & Jun-Hyung Kim & Yee-Myung Choi & Han-Lim Seo, 2013. "Design elements to improve pleasantness, vitality, safety, and complexity of the pedestrian environment: evidence from a Korean neighbourhood walkability case study," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 142-160, March.
    6. Suman Seth & Mark McGillivray, 2018. "Composite indices, alternative weights, and comparison robustness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 657-679, December.
    7. Hyunsoo Kim, 2020. "Wearable Sensor Data-Driven Walkability Assessment for Elderly People," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-13, May.
    8. Loo, Becky P.Y., 2021. "Walking towards a happy city," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. John S. Chipman & Jean-Sébastien Lenfant, 2002. "Slutsky's 1915 Article: How It Came to Be Found and Interpreted," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 553-597, Fall.
    10. Cerin, Ester & Conway, Terry L. & Adams, Marc A. & Barnett, Anthony & Cain, Kelli L. & Owen, Neville & Christiansen, Lars B. & van Dyck, Delfien & Mitáš, Josef & Sarmiento, Olga L. & Davey, Rachel C. , 2018. "Objectively-assessed neighbourhood destination accessibility and physical activity in adults from 10 countries: An analysis of moderators and perceptions as mediators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 282-293.
    11. Morgan Mouton & Ryan Burns, 2021. "(Digital) neo-colonialism in the smart city," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(12), pages 1890-1901, December.
    12. Ivan Blečić & Tanja Congiu & Giovanna Fancello & Giuseppe Andrea Trunfio, 2020. "Planning and Design Support Tools for Walkability: A Guide for Urban Analysts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, May.
    13. Rob Kitchin & Niamh Moore-Cherry, 2021. "Fragmented governance, the urban data ecosystem and smart city-regions: the case of Metropolitan Boston," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(12), pages 1913-1923, December.
    14. I-Chun Catherine Chang & Sue-Ching Jou & Ming-Kuang Chung, 2021. "Provincialising smart urbanism in Taipei: The smart city as a strategy for urban regime transition," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(3), pages 559-580, February.
    15. Hübler, Michael & Löschel, Andreas, 2013. "The EU Decarbonisation Roadmap 2050—What way to walk?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 190-207.
    16. Kwok Tai Chui & Miltiadis D. Lytras & Anna Visvizi, 2018. "Energy Sustainability in Smart Cities: Artificial Intelligence, Smart Monitoring, and Optimization of Energy Consumption," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Prita Indah Pratiwi & Qiongying Xiang & Katsunori Furuya, 2020. "Physiological and Psychological Effects of Walking in Urban Parks and Its Imagery in Different Seasons in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Evidence from Matsudo City, Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-25, May.
    18. Gao, Jie & Kamphuis, Carlijn B.M. & Helbich, Marco & Ettema, Dick, 2020. "What is ‘neighborhood walkability’? How the built environment differently correlates with walking for different purposes and with walking on weekdays and weekends," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    19. Varameth Vichiensan & Kazuki Nakamura, 2021. "Walkability Perception in Asian Cities: A Comparative Study in Bangkok and Nagoya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    20. Zhang, Runsen & Zhang, Junyi, 2021. "Long-term pathways to deep decarbonization of the transport sector in the post-COVID world," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 28-36.
    21. Elmira Jamei & Khatereh Ahmadi & Hing Wah Chau & Mehdi Seyedmahmoudian & Ben Horan & Alex Stojcevski, 2021. "Urban Design and Walkability: Lessons Learnt from Iranian Traditional Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, May.
    22. Fernando Fonseca & Elisa Conticelli & George Papageorgiou & Paulo Ribeiro & Mona Jabbari & Simona Tondelli & Rui Ramos, 2021. "Levels and Characteristics of Utilitarian Walking in the Central Areas of the Cities of Bologna and Porto," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    23. Suman Seth & Mark McGillivray, 2018. "Composite indices, alternative weights, and comparison robustness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 657-679, December.
    24. Yongjun Shen & Elke Hermans & Tom Brijs & Geert Wets, 2013. "Data Envelopment Analysis for Composite Indicators: A Multiple Layer Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 739-756, November.
    25. Roman Wosiek & Anna Visvizi, 2021. "The VWRCA Index: Measuring a Country’s Comparative Advantage and Specialization in Services. The Case of Poland," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-12, April.
    26. Miltiadis D. Lytras & Anna Visvizi, 2018. "Who Uses Smart City Services and What to Make of It: Toward Interdisciplinary Smart Cities Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    27. van den Berg, Pauline & Sharmeen, Fariya & Weijs-Perrée, Minou, 2017. "On the subjective quality of social Interactions: Influence of neighborhood walkability, social cohesion and mobility choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 309-319.
    28. Haruka Kato & Atsushi Takizawa, 2021. "Which Residential Clusters of Walkability Affect Future Population from the Perspective of Real Estate Prices in the Osaka Metropolitan Area?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, December.
    29. Miltiadis D. Lytras & Anna Visvizi & Akila Sarirete, 2019. "Clustering Smart City Services: Perceptions, Expectations, Responses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, March.
    30. Blancas, Francisco J. & Caballero, Rafael & González, Mercedes & Lozano-Oyola, Macarena & Pérez, Fátima, 2010. "Goal programming synthetic indicators: An application for sustainable tourism in Andalusian coastal counties," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2158-2172, September.
    31. Salvucci, Raffaele & Gargiulo, Maurizio & Karlsson, Kenneth, 2019. "The role of modal shift in decarbonising the Scandinavian transport sector: Applying substitution elasticities in TIMES-Nordic," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 1-1.
    32. Chao Shi & Kenneth C. Land, 2021. "The Data Envelopment Analysis and Equal Weights/Minimax Methods of Composite Social Indicator Construction: a Methodological Study of Data Sensitivity and Robustness," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(4), pages 1689-1716, August.
    33. Shannon H. Rogers & Kevin H. Gardner & Cynthia H. Carlson, 2013. "Social Capital and Walkability as Social Aspects of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-11, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pietro Battistoni & Marco Romano & Monica Sebillo & Giuliana Vitiello, 2023. "Monitoring Urban Happiness through Interactive Chorems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-19, May.
    2. Eun Jung Kim & Youngeun Gong, 2023. "The Smart City and Healthy Walking: An Environmental Comparison Between Healthy and the Shortest Route Choices," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 81-92.
    3. Heidi Silvennoinen & Saskia Kuliga & Pieter Herthogs & Daniela Rodrigues Recchia & Bige Tunçer, 2022. "Effects of Gehl’s urban design guidelines on walkability: A virtual reality experiment in Singaporean public housing estates," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(9), pages 2409-2428, November.
    4. Kędra, Arleta & Maleszyk, Piotr & Visvizi, Anna, 2023. "Engaging citizens in land use policy in the smart city context," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Shahira Assem Abdel-Razek & Hanaa Salem Marie & Ali Alshehri & Omar M. Elzeki, 2022. "Energy Efficiency through the Implementation of an AI Model to Predict Room Occupancy Based on Thermal Comfort Parameters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-25, June.
    6. Radosław Malik & Anna Visvizi & Orlando Troisi & Mara Grimaldi, 2022. "Smart Services in Smart Cities: Insights from Science Mapping Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Radosław Malik & Anna Visvizi & Orlando Troisi & Mara Grimaldi, 2022. "Smart Services in Smart Cities: Insights from Science Mapping Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Maria Vincenza Ciasullo & Orlando Troisi & Mara Grimaldi & Daniele Leone, 2020. "Multi-level governance for sustainable innovation in smart communities: an ecosystems approach," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 1167-1195, December.
    3. Andreas Andreou & Panagiotis Fragkos & Theofano Fotiou & Faidra Filippidou, 2022. "Assessing Lifestyle Transformations and Their Systemic Effects in Energy-System and Integrated Assessment Models: A Review of Current Methods and Data," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-24, July.
    4. Mona Jabbari & Zahra Ahmadi & Rui Ramos, 2022. "Defining a Digital System for the Pedestrian Network as a Conceptual Implementation Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-11, February.
    5. Marcos Nahuel Martínez Stanziani, 2020. "Índices de Ciudades Inteligentes: construcción y análisis de un indicador para la ciudad de Bahía Blanca," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4374, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    6. Liu, Jixiang & Wang, Bo & Xiao, Longzhu, 2021. "Non-linear associations between built environment and active travel for working and shopping: An extreme gradient boosting approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Ana De Las Heras & Amalia Luque-Sendra & Francisco Zamora-Polo, 2020. "Machine Learning Technologies for Sustainability in Smart Cities in the Post-COVID Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-25, November.
    8. Marchesani, Filippo & Masciarelli, Francesca & Bikfalvi, Andrea, 2023. "Smart city as a hub for talent and innovative companies: Exploring the (dis) advantages of digital technology implementation in cities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Paloma Morales-Flores & Carlos Marmolejo-Duarte, 2021. "Can We Build Walkable Environments to Support Social Capital? Towards a Spatial Understanding of Social Capital; a Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-15, November.
    10. Zeng, Qian & Wu, Hao & Zhou, Luyao & Huang, Gonghu & Li, Yuting & Dewancker, Bart Julien, 2024. "Toward pedestrian-friendly cities: Nonlinear and interaction effects of building density on pedestrian volume," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    11. Fernando Fonseca & George Papageorgiou & Simona Tondelli & Paulo Ribeiro & Elisa Conticelli & Mona Jabbari & Rui Ramos, 2022. "Perceived Walkability and Respective Urban Determinants: Insights from Bologna and Porto," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Trichês Lucchesi, Shanna & Larranaga, Ana Margarita & Bettella Cybis, Helena Beatriz & Abreu e Silva, João António de & Arellana, Julian Alberto, 2021. "Are people willing to pay more to live in a walking environment? A multigroup analysis of the impact of walkability on real estate values and their moderation effects in two Global South cities," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    13. Kestutis Zaleckis & Szymon Chmielewski & Jūratė Kamičaitytė & Indre Grazuleviciute-Vileniske & Halina Lipińska, 2022. "Walkability Compass—A Space Syntax Solution for Comparative Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-25, February.
    14. Longzhu Xiao & Linchuan Yang & Jixiang Liu & Hongtai Yang, 2020. "Built Environment Correlates of the Propensity of Walking and Cycling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Alessandro Crivellari & Euro Beinat, 2020. "LSTM-Based Deep Learning Model for Predicting Individual Mobility Traces of Short-Term Foreign Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Kun Yuan & Hirokazu Abe & Noriko Otsuka & Kensuke Yasufuku & Akira Takahashi, 2023. "A Comprehensive Evaluation of Walkability in Historical Cities: The Case of Xi’an and Kyoto," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.
    17. Jihwan Yoon & Jaeyoul Chun & Hyunsoo Kim, 2020. "Investigating the Relation between Walkability and the Changes in Pedestrian Policy through Wearable Sensing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-19, December.
    18. Ibrahim Mutambik, 2023. "The Global Whitewashing of Smart Cities: Citizens’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-16, May.
    19. Tu Peng & Xu Yang & Zi Xu & Yu Liang, 2020. "Constructing an Environmental Friendly Low-Carbon-Emission Intelligent Transportation System Based on Big Data and Machine Learning Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, October.
    20. Marek Bodziany & Zbigniew Ścibiorek & Zenon Zamiar & Anna Visvizi, 2021. "Managerial Competencies & Polish SMEs’ Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Insight," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-22, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:23:p:8193-:d:696399. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.