IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i23p10116-d455918.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Rationality and Walkability of Campus Layouts

Author

Listed:
  • Zhehao Zhang

    (School of Architecture, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China)

  • Thomas Fisher

    (School of Architecture, College of Design, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA)

  • Gang Feng

    (School of Architecture, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China)

Abstract

Walking has become an indispensable and sustainable way of travel for college students in their daily lives and improving the walkability of the college campus will increase the convenience of student life. This paper develops a new campus walkability assessment tool, which optimizes the Walk Score method based on the frequency, variety, and distance of students’ walking to and from public facilities. The campus Walk Score is the product of four components. A preliminary score is calculated through 13 types of facility weight and 3 types of cure of time-decay, and the final score also factors in intersection density and block length. We examine the old and new campuses of Tianjin University to test the tool’s application and evaluate the rationality of facility layout and walkability, and to give suggestions for improvement. The results show that the old campus’ multi-center layout has a high degree of walkability, while the centralized layout of the new campus results in lower walkability. In addition, the diversified distribution of facilities surrounding the old campus promotes the walkability of peripheral places. This assessment tool can help urban planners and campus designers make decisions about how to adjust the facility layout of existing campuses in different regions or to evaluate the campus schemes based on the results of their walkability assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhehao Zhang & Thomas Fisher & Gang Feng, 2020. "Assessing the Rationality and Walkability of Campus Layouts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:10116-:d:455918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/10116/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/10116/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerlinde Grasser & Delfien Dyck & Sylvia Titze & Willibald Stronegger, 2013. "Objectively measured walkability and active transport and weight-related outcomes in adults: a systematic review," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 58(4), pages 615-625, August.
    2. Gary Pivo & Jeffrey D. Fisher, 2011. "The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Investments," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 185-219, June.
    3. Bradley Bereitschaft, 2017. "Equity in Microscale Urban Design and Walkability: A Photographic Survey of Six Pittsburgh Streetscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Leyden, K.M., 2003. "Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1546-1551.
    5. Melissa Bartshe & Courtney Coughenour & Jennifer Pharr, 2018. "Perceived Walkability, Social Capital, and Self-Reported Physical Activity in Las Vegas College Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-11, August.
    6. Sarah B. King & Andrew T. Kaczynski & Jacqueline Knight Wilt & Ellen W. Stowe, 2020. "Walkability 101: A Multi-Method Assessment of the Walkability at a University Campus," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    7. Zhou, Jiangping, 2014. "From better understandings to proactive actions: Housing location and commuting mode choices among university students," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 166-175.
    8. Peiravian, Farideddin & Derrible, Sybil & Ijaz, Farukh, 2014. "Development and application of the Pedestrian Environment Index (PEI)," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 73-84.
    9. Boeing, Geoff, 2019. "The Morphology and Circuity of Walkable and Drivable Street Networks," SocArXiv edj2s, Center for Open Science.
    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. Te Mu & Yanqing Lao, 2022. "A Study on the Walkability of Zijingang East Campus of Zhejiang University: Based on Network Distance Walk Score," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Yue Yang & Yongsheng Qian & Junwei Zeng & Xuting Wei & Minan Yang, 2023. "Walkability Measurement of 15-Minute Community Life Circle in Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    3. Zhehao Zhang & Thomas Fisher & Haiming Wang, 2023. "Walk Score, Environmental Quality and Walking in a Campus Setting," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Zhang, Zhehao & Wang, Haiming & Fisher, Thomas, 2024. "The development, validation, and application of the campus walk score measurement system," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 40-54.
    5. Bojing Liao & Yifan Xu & Xiang Li & Ji Li, 2022. "Association between Campus Walkability and Affective Walking Experience, and the Mediating Role of Walking Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.

    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. Eun Jung Kim & Hyunjung Kim, 2020. "Neighborhood Walkability and Housing Prices: A Correlation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Bojing Liao & Yifan Xu & Xiang Li & Ji Li, 2022. "Association between Campus Walkability and Affective Walking Experience, and the Mediating Role of Walking Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Hamidi, Shima & Zandiatashbar, Ahoura & Bonakdar, Ahmad, 2019. "The relationship between regional compactness and regional innovation capacity (RIC): Empirical evidence from a national study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 394-402.
    4. Zhehao Zhang & Thomas Fisher & Haiming Wang, 2023. "Walk Score, Environmental Quality and Walking in a Campus Setting," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Bradley Bereitschaft, 2023. "The changing ethno-racial profile of ‘very walkable’ urban neighbourhoods in the US (2010–2020): Are minorities under-represented?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(4), pages 638-654, March.
    6. Dustin T. Duncan & Jared Aldstadt & John Whalen & Kellee White & Márcia C. Castro & David R. Williams, 2012. "Space, race, and poverty: Spatial inequalities in walkable neighborhood amenities?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 26(17), pages 409-448.
    7. Young-Jae Kim & Ayoung Woo, 2016. "What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Vanessa Tibola da ROCHA & Luciana Londero BRANDLI & Rosa Maria Locatelli KALIL & Amanda Lange SALVIA & Pedro Domingos Marques PRIETTO, 2019. "Quality Of Sidewalks In A Brazilian City: A Broad Vision," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(2), pages 41-58, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Choobchian, Pooria & Mohammadi, Ali & Zou, Bo & Hair, Joseph F. & Valinejad, Mahsa & Shin, Jaeyong & Sriraj, P.S., 2024. "Calibrating walkability indicators for commute walk trips: A structural equation modeling approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    11. Elizabeth A. Mack & Emily Talen & Julia Koschinsky, 2017. "Walkable Art: An Empirical Investigation of Arts-Related Businesses and Walkable Neighborhoods," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 31(2), pages 149-163, May.
    12. Te Mu & Yanqing Lao, 2022. "A Study on the Walkability of Zijingang East Campus of Zhejiang University: Based on Network Distance Walk Score," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, September.
    13. Jingyuan Zhang & Puay Yok Tan & Hui Zeng & Ye Zhang, 2019. "Walkability Assessment in a Rapidly Urbanizing City and Its Relationship with Residential Estate Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, April.
    14. Alvaro Rodriguez-Valencia & Jose Agustin Vallejo-Borda & German A. Barrero & Hernan Alberto Ortiz-Ramirez, 2022. "Towards an enriched framework of service evaluation for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure: acknowledging the power of users’ perceptions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 791-814, June.
    15. Omer Dogan & Jaewon Han & Sugie Lee, 2021. "Opening Gated Communities and Neighborhood Accessibility Benefits: The Case of Seoul, Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Chinmoy Ghosh & Venkatesh Panchapagesan & Madalasa Venkataraman, 2024. "On the Impact of Infrastructure Improvement on Real Estate Property Values: Evidence from a Quasi-natural Experiment in an Emerging Market," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 103-137, January.
    17. Kevin Credit & Elizabeth Mack, 2019. "Place-making and performance: The impact of walkable built environments on business performance in Phoenix and Boston," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(2), pages 264-285, February.
    18. Shannon Rogers & Semra Aytur & Kevin Gardner & Cynthia Carlson, 2012. "Measuring community sustainability: exploring the intersection of the built environment & social capital with a participatory case study," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 2(2), pages 143-153, June.
    19. John Landis & Vincent J. Reina, 2021. "Do Restrictive Land Use Regulations Make Housing More Expensive Everywhere?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 35(4), pages 305-324, November.
    20. Noelia Somarriba Arechavala & Pilar Zarzosa Espina & Ana Teresa López Pastor, 2022. "The Importance of the Neighbourhood Environment and Social Capital for Happiness in a Vulnerable District: The Case of the Pajarillos District in Spain," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 1941-1965, June.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:10116-:d:455918. 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.