IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i6p593-d100422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Neighborhood Walkable Environments: A Comparison of Three Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Yen-Cheng Chiang

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, National Chiayi University, Chiayi 60004, Taiwan)

  • William Sullivan

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA)

  • Linda Larsen

    (Department of Rhetoric and Composition Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA)

Abstract

Multiple studies have revealed the impact of walkable environments on physical activity. Scholars attach considerable importance to leisure and health-related walking. Recent studies have used Google Street View as an instrument to assess city streets and walkable environments; however, no study has compared the validity of Google Street View assessments of walkable environment attributes to assessments made by local residents and compiled from field visits. In this study, we involved nearby residents and compared the extent to which Google Street View assessments of the walkable environment correlated with assessments from local residents and with field visits. We determined the assessment approaches (local resident or field visit assessments) that exhibited the highest agreement with Google Street View. One city with relatively high-quality walkable environments and one city with relatively low-quality walkable environments were examined, and three neighborhoods from each city were surveyed. Participants in each neighborhood used one of three approaches to assess the walkability of the environment: 15 local residents assessed the environment using a map, 15 participants made a field visit to assess the environment, and 15 participants used Google Street View to assess the environment, yielding a total of 90 valid samples for the two cities. Findings revealed that the three approaches to assessing neighborhood walkability were highly correlated for traffic safety, aesthetics, sidewalk quality, and physical barriers. Compared with assessments from participants making field visits, assessments by local residents were more highly correlated with Google Street View assessments. Google Street View provides a more convenient, low-cost, efficient, and safe approach to assess neighborhood walkability. The results of this study may facilitate future large-scale walkable environment surveys, effectively reduce expenses, and improve survey efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Yen-Cheng Chiang & William Sullivan & Linda Larsen, 2017. "Measuring Neighborhood Walkable Environments: A Comparison of Three Approaches," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-12, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:6:p:593-:d:100422
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/6/593/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/6/593/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Concu, Nanni & Atzeni, Gianfranco, 2012. "Conflicting preferences among tourists and residents," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1293-1300.
    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. Jean C. Bikomeye & Caitlin S. Rublee & Kirsten M. M. Beyer, 2021. "Positive Externalities of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation for Human Health: A Review and Conceptual Framework for Public Health Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-29, March.

    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. Angelo Antoci & Paolo Russu & Pier Luigi Sacco & Giorgio Tavano Blessi, 2022. "Preying on beauty? The complex social dynamics of overtourism," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 17(1), pages 379-400, January.
    2. Campos, Javier & Jiménez, Juan-Luis & Suárez-Alemán, Ancor, 2013. "Prices and brand diversity in touristic areas supermarkets," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 435-440.
    3. Marc Compte-Pujol & Jordi San Eugenio-Vela & Joan Frigola-Reig, 2018. "Key elements in defining Barcelona’s place values: the contribution of residents’ perceptions from an internal place branding perspective," Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(4), pages 245-259, November.
    4. Anfuso, G. & Williams, A.T. & Cabrera Hernández, J.A. & Pranzini, E., 2014. "Coastal scenic assessment and tourism management in western Cuba," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 307-320.
    5. Beatriz Tovar & David Boto-García & José Francisco Baños Pino, 2024. "Meeting externalities: The effects of educational training on support for tourism activities," Tourism Economics, , vol. 30(3), pages 785-805, May.
    6. David Boto-García & Petr Mariel & José Baños Pino & Antonio Alvarez, 2022. "Tourists’ willingness to pay for holiday trip characteristics: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Tourism Economics, , vol. 28(2), pages 349-370, March.
    7. Marta Meleddu, 2016. "Repeating discrete choice experiments to estimate public preferences in a case of costal land use policy," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 47-72.
    8. Marta Meleddu, 2014. "Tourism, Residents’ Welfare And Economic Choice: A Literature Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 376-399, April.
    9. Osiel Gonzalez Davila & Phoebe Koundouri & Ioannis Souliotis & Erasmia Kotroni & Wenting Chen & Claire Haggett & Shiau-Yun Lu & David Rudolph, 2015. "Supporting BLUE Growth: Eliciting Stakeholders' preferences for Multiple-Use Offshore Platforms," DEOS Working Papers 1504, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    10. Kemperman, Astrid, 2021. "A review of research into discrete choice experiments in tourism: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on Discrete Choice Experiments in Tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    11. Javier Campos & Juan Luis Jiménez & Ancor Suárez-Alemán, 2012. "“Not always sunny in paradise: prices and brand diversity in touristic areas supermarkets”," IREA Working Papers 201211, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised May 2012.
    12. Renato Perez Loyola & Erda Wang & Nannan Kang, 2021. "Economic valuation of recreational attributes using a choice experiment approach: An application to the Galapagos Islands," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 86-104, February.
    13. Jovana Brankov & Ivana Penjišević & Nina B. Ćurčić & Branko Živanović, 2019. "Tourism as a Factor of Regional Development: Community Perceptions and Potential Bank Support in the Kopaonik National Park (Serbia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-22, November.

    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:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:6:p:593-:d:100422. 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.