IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/transr/v40y2020i2p204-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing urban sidewalk networks based on three constructs: a synthesis of pedestrian level of service literature

Author

Listed:
  • Dipanjan Nag
  • Arkopal Kishore Goswami
  • Ankit Gupta
  • Joy Sen

Abstract

Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) models are widely used to assess walking facilities. These models have been in existence since the 1970s, wherein the process broadly consists of three steps, i.e. attribute selection, model calibration, and classification of model results into service-level categories, based on Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). This paper reviews existing sidewalk PLOS studies based on their association with the three constructs of flow characteristics, built environment and users’ perception, which in combination represents the entire walking environment spectrum, as has been indicated by existing researchers. Forty-seven PLOS studies, along with eight review papers, written by authors from the Americas, Europe, Asia and Australia, between the years of 1971 and 2019, are analysed in this review. The review finds that although 49% of the studies employed both qualitative and quantitative data for their respective methodologies, but none of them use all the three broad constructs in a combined fashion. Also, in selecting the attributes to be used for developing the PLOS, these studies have only referred to previous literature available at that point in time, and not employed any consistent and robust method in selecting context-specific attributes. When it came to the preferred analysis technique, 60% of the studies favoured the use of the regression technique while calibrating their model, whereas 22% used a points-based marking scheme. Finally, 89% of the studies manually classifies the PLOS model results to respective service levels (i.e. letter grades), as opposed to utilising a classification algorithm. In addition, this review could identify only one paper that describes a PLOS based on pedestrian route directness, which is a measure of pedestrian network connectivity. In view of these findings, the review paper suggests the need of a robust methodology in selection of attributes and the use of innovative modelling techniques, both of which could allow the utilisation of all three constructs. Also, such advanced modelling techniques could bypass the need for categorising service levels manually. Finally, the study advocates the use of network connectivity measures in developing sidewalk PLOS, as it is an important part of the built environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Dipanjan Nag & Arkopal Kishore Goswami & Ankit Gupta & Joy Sen, 2020. "Assessing urban sidewalk networks based on three constructs: a synthesis of pedestrian level of service literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 204-240, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:transr:v:40:y:2020:i:2:p:204-240
    DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2019.1703841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01441647.2019.1703841
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01441647.2019.1703841?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hennessy, Emily Rose & Ai, Chengbo, 2023. "A comparative analysis of pedestrian network connectivity and accessibility using network approximation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:transr:v:40:y:2020:i:2:p:204-240. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/TTRV20 .

    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.