Methodological procedures for studying walkability in Cachoeira do Sul throught best-worst Scaling technique
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X35521Keywords:
Methodology, Walkability, Best-Worst ScalingAbstract
Cities increasingly face problems in urban mobility. Studies on the influence of transport to promote quality of life serve as important tools for decision-making regaring urban planning. In this context, studies to identify the characteristics to design a walkable city are supporting tools in building more sustainable, safer, healtier, more accessible and livable urban environment. This paper aims to present the methodological procedures taken to elaborate the necessary instruments to the future application of the Best Worst Scaling technique, which in the walkablity study allows the determination of the most important characteristics to promote walking as transport. Among the methodological steps presented in this paper are the geospatial distribution methods and neighborhoods characterization in Cachoeira do Sul, a mid-sized city in Brazilian, sample stratification and calculation, variables included in the analysis, data collection, design and application of the walkability surveys
Downloads
References
BALSAS C J L. Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses. Transport Policy. 2003;10(1):35–49.
BANISTER D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy. 2008;15(2):73–80.
BRADSHAW C. Creating – and Using – a Rating System for Neighbourhood Walkability. Hearth Healt. Paper presented at the 14th International Pedestrian Conference, Boulder, CO. 1993. Available from: http://hearthhealth.wor dpress.com/about/previously-published-works/feet-first-early/creaing-and-using-a-rating-system-for-neighbourhood-walkability-towards-an-agenda-for-local-heroes-1993
CERVERO R, DUNCAN M. Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(9):1478–1483.
CERVERO R. Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 1996;30(5):361–377.
DUMBAUGH E, RAE, R. Safe urban form: revisiting the relationship between community design and traffic safety. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2009;75(3):309–329.
ELVIK R, HOYE A, VAA T, SORENSEN M. The handbook of road safety measures; 2004
EWING R, CERVERO R. Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2001;1780(1):87–114.
EWING R, HANDY S. Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design. 2009;14(1):65–84.
FERRER S, RUIZ T. The impact of the built environment on the decision to walk for short trips: Evidence from two Spanish cities. Transport Policy. 2016;67:111–120.
FINN A, LOUVIERE J J. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. 1992;11(1):12-25.
GHIDINI R. A caminhabilidade: medida urbana sustentável. Revista dos Transportes Públicos – ANTP. 2011,33(1):23-33.
GREENWALD M, BOARNET M. Built Environment as Determinant of Walking Behavior: Analyzing Nonwork Pedestrian Travel in Portland, Oregon. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2001;1780:33–41.
IBGE. Perfil dos Municípios Brasileiros 2012. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2011. Disponível em: ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Perfil_Municipios/2011/munic2011.pdf.
INPE. Topodata: Banco de Dados Geomorfológicos do Brasil. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. 2008. Available from: http://www.dsr.inpe.br/topodata/acesso.php.
JABAREEN Y R. Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2006;26(1):38-72.
JENSEN, S U. How to obtain a healthy journey to school. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2008;42(3):475–486.
KELLY C E, TIGHT M R, HODGSON F C, PAGE M W. A comparison of three methods for assessing the walkability of the pedestrian environment. Journal of Transport Geography. 2011;19(6):1500–1508.
KIM S, PARK S, LEEJ S. (2014) Meso- or micro-scale? Environmental factors influencing pedestrian satisfaction. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2014;3:10–20.
LARRAÑAGA A M, CYBIS H B B, ARELLANA J, RIZZI L I, STRAMBI O. Estimando a importância de características do ambiente construído para estimular bairros caminháveis usando Best-Worst Scaling. Transportes, 2016;24(2):946–1958.
LESLIE E, SAELENS B, FRANK L, OWEN N, BAUMAN A, COFFEE N, HUGO, G. Residents’ perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighbourhoods: A pilot study. Health and Place. 2005;11(3):227–236.
NEWMAN P, KENWORTHY J R. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, Ed. EUA: Washington DC; 1999.
RHODES R, BROWN S, MCINTYRE C. Integrating the perceived neighborhood environment and the theory of planned behaviour when predicting walking in a Canadian adult sample. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2006;(21):110–118.
SPIEGEL M R. Estatística. 4 ed. 597 p. São Paulo: Bookman; 2009.
STRADLING S G, ANABLE J, CARRENO M. Performance, importance and user disgruntlement: A six-step method for measuring satisfaction with travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2007;41(1): 98–106.
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sustainable Development Goal; 2015. Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/c ontent/documents/2252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
