IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i3p1880-d743567.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do University Students’ Security Perceptions Influence Their Walking Preferences and Their Walking Activity? A Case Study of Granada (Spain)

Author

Listed:
  • Carmen Lizárraga

    (Department of Applied Economics, Campus Cartuja s/n, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain)

  • Cathaysa Martín-Blanco

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Campus Fuentenueva s/n, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain)

  • Isabel Castillo-Pérez

    (Department of Applied Economics, Campus Cartuja s/n, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain)

  • Jorge Chica-Olmo

    (Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business, Campus Cartuja s/n, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain)

Abstract

A sustainable city must be a safe place for its inhabitants when walking, with the absence of fear of crime being one of its main attributes. Although perceived insecurity is one of the main deterrents of walking activity, this relationship requires some clarification in environments which are walkable and safe, with low crime rates. This article contributes to the evidence for the influence of perceived security on walking activity and, as a novel aspect, also analyzes the effects of perceived security on walking as the preferred travel mode. In order to study this relationship, we use a method that combines non-linear principal component analysis (NLPCA) and a logit model (LM). The data are taken from a survey of university students carried out in the city of Granada. Results show that gender and perceived security have a greater effect on the choice of walking as the preferred travel mode, while location factors have significantly more weight in the explanation of the choice of walking as the most usual travel mode. These findings may be extended to other urban areas and can be of use for the implementation of urban policies aimed at designing the built environment to develop more sustainable cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Carmen Lizárraga & Cathaysa Martín-Blanco & Isabel Castillo-Pérez & Jorge Chica-Olmo, 2022. "Do University Students’ Security Perceptions Influence Their Walking Preferences and Their Walking Activity? A Case Study of Granada (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1880-:d:743567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1880/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1880/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reid Ewing & Robert Cervero, 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(3), pages 265-294.
    2. Brand, Christian & Goodman, Anna & Ogilvie, David, 2014. "Evaluating the impacts of new walking and cycling infrastructure on carbon dioxide emissions from motorized travel: A controlled longitudinal study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 284-295.
    3. Cao, Xinyu, 2006. "The Causal Relationship between the Built Environment and Personal Travel Choice: Evidence from Northern California," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt07q5p340, University of California Transportation Center.
    4. Soongbong Lee & Myungjoo Han & Kyoungah Rhee & Bumjoon Bae, 2021. "Identification of Factors Affecting Pedestrian Satisfaction toward Land Use and Street Type," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-14, September.
    5. Kelly, C.E. & Tight, M.R. & Hodgson, F.C. & Page, M.W., 2011. "A comparison of three methods for assessing the walkability of the pedestrian environment," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 1500-1508.
    6. Ferrer, Sheila & Ruiz, Tomás, 2018. "The impact of the built environment on the decision to walk for short trips: Evidence from two Spanish cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 111-120.
    7. Dalit Shach-Pinsly & Tamar Ganor, 2021. "A New Approach for Assessing Secure and Vulnerable Areas in Central Urban Neighborhoods Based on Social-Groups’ Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-25, January.
    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. Marcus Cardoso & Tálita Santos & Luiza Gagno Azolin Tessarolo & Vicente Aprigliano & Antônio Nélson Rodrigues da Silva & Marcelino Aurélio Vieira da Silva, 2023. "Exploring the Resilience of Public Transport Trips in the Face of Urban Violence from a Gender Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-24, December.
    2. Asal Kamani Fard & Mohammad Paydar & Verónica Gárate Navarrete, 2023. "Urban Park Design and Pedestrian Mobility—Case Study: Temuco, Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Natalia Distefano & Salvatore Leonardi, 2023. "Fostering Urban Walking: Strategies Focused on Pedestrian Satisfaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-17, December.

    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. Maria Johansson & Catharina Sternudd & Mattias Kärrholm, 2016. "Perceived urban design qualities and affective experiences of walking," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 256-275, April.
    2. Chetan Doddamani & M. Manoj, 2023. "Analysis of the influences of built environment measures on household car and motorcycle ownership decisions in Hubli-Dharwad cities," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 205-243, February.
    3. Ahmad Adeel & Bruno Notteboom & Ansar Yasar & Kris Scheerlinck & Jeroen Stevens, 2021. "Sustainable Streetscape and Built Environment Designs around BRT Stations: A Stated Choice Experiment Using 3D Visualizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Kajosaari, Anna & Hasanzadeh, Kamyar & Kyttä, Marketta, 2019. "Residential dissonance and walking for transport," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 134-144.
    5. Lucas, Karen & Philips, Ian & Mulley, Corinne & Ma, Liang, 2018. "Is transport poverty socially or environmentally driven? Comparing the travel behaviours of two low-income populations living in central and peripheral locations in the same city," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 622-634.
    6. Md. Kamruzzaman & Simon Washington & Douglas Baker & Wendy Brown & Billie Giles-Corti & Gavin Turrell, 2016. "Built environment impacts on walking for transport in Brisbane, Australia," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 53-77, January.
    7. Faizeh Hatami & Jean-Claude Thill, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Evaluation of the Built Environment’s Impact on Commuting Duration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Bereitschaft, Bradley, 2020. "Gentrification and the evolution of commuting behavior within America's urban cores, 2000–2015," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    9. Lo, A. W.-T. & Houston, D., 2018. "How do compact, accessible, and walkable communities promote gender equality in spatial behavior?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 42-54.
    10. Hosseinzadeh, Aryan & Algomaiah, Majeed & Kluger, Robert & Li, Zhixia, 2021. "Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    11. Calvin P Tribby & Harvey J Miller & Barbara B Brown & Carol M Werner & Ken R Smith, 2017. "Analyzing walking route choice through built environments using random forests and discrete choice techniques," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 44(6), pages 1145-1167, November.
    12. Haitao Yu & Zhong-Ren Peng, 2020. "The impacts of built environment on ridesourcing demand: A neighbourhood level analysis in Austin, Texas," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(1), pages 152-175, January.
    13. Liu, Yanan & Yang, Dujuan & Timmermans, Harry J.P. & de Vries, Bauke, 2020. "Analysis of the impact of street-scale built environment design near metro stations on pedestrian and cyclist road segment choice: A stated choice experiment," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    14. Hou, Yuting & Yap, Winston & Chua, Rochelle & Song, Siqi & Yuen, Belinda, 2020. "The associations between older adults’ daily travel pattern and objective and perceived built environment: A study of three neighbourhoods in Singapore," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 314-328.
    15. Qinglin Jia & Tao Zhang & Long Cheng & Gang Cheng & Minjie Jin, 2022. "The Impact of the Neighborhood Built Environment on the Walking Activity of Older Adults: A Multi-Scale Spatial Heterogeneity Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, October.
    16. Philipp Rode & Alexandra Gomes & Muhammad Adeel & Fizzah Sajjad & Andreas Koch & Syed Monjur Murshed, 2020. "Between Abundance and Constraints: The Natural Resource Equation of Asia’s Diverging, Higher-Income City Models," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-33, October.
    17. Mitra, Suman & Yao, Mingqi & Ritchie, Stephen G., 2021. "Gender differences in elderly mobility in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 203-226.
    18. Millward, Hugh & Spinney, Jamie & Scott, Darren, 2013. "Active-transport walking behavior: destinations, durations, distances," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 101-110.
    19. 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.
    20. Erick Guerra & Shengxiao Li & Ariadna Reyes, 2022. "How do low-income commuters get to work in US and Mexican cities? A comparative empirical assessment," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 59(1), pages 75-96, January.

    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:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1880-:d:743567. 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.