MEASURING THE QUALITY OF THE PEDESTRIAN … · MEASURING THE QUALITY OF THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: TOWARDS AN APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ... There are a number of objective

MEASURING THE QUALITY OF THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:TOWARDS AN APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Prepared byAndrew DevlinMA Candidate

Presented toDr. Lawrence FrankPLAN 548QSchool of Community and Regional Planning

7 March 2008The University of British Columbia

A. Devlin

Page 2

ABSTRACT

In order to plan for more walkable environments, methods are required that allow

planners and decision-makers to effectively identify and assess the elements of the

built environment that support or detract from walking. The existing pedestrian level-

of-service methodology is critiqued and demonstrated to be an inappropriate tool

to assess the pedestrian environment. A more accurate and sensitive tool would

incorporate and account for the various micro-scale environmental factors that

define the walking environment. To improve existing assessment processes,

municipalities will be required to identify what elements need to be measured, how

to measure these elements and, finally, incorporating them into an appropriate

assessment framework. The literature and progressive practical examples like the For

Collins pedestrian LOS methodology provide a framework for how to develop an

appropriate tool.

A. Devlin

Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 4

DEFINING AND DISSECTING THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT 4

MEASURING THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT 6

Existing Approach 6

Strengths and Weaknesses of Existing Approach 7

ARTICULATING A NEW DIRECTION 8

What Needs To Be Measured? 9

How Should These Elements Be Measured? 9

What Should A New Methodology Look Like? 10

CASE STUDY 11

Fort Collins, Colorado – A Progressive Pedestrian LOS 11

CONCLUSIONS 12

REFERENCES 12

A. Devlin

Page 4

INTRODUCTION

With the explosion of Smart Growth, New Urbanism and neo-Traditional urban design

ideologies during the past decade, it has become common for many municipal

governments and planning agencies to cite their commitment towards planning for

the pedestrian and nonmotorized traveler (Benfield, 2003). In order to appropriately

plan for more walkable environments, methods are required that allow planners and

decision-makers to effectively identify and assess the elements of the built

environment that support or detract from walking. (Muraleetharan and Hagiwara,

2007). The quality of the pedestrian environment has been measured for many years

throughout North American and Europe using the Level-of-Service (LOS) approach.

Debate exists, however, over the appropriateness of existing LOS methods to

capture the numerous factors that contribute to how walkable a streetscape may

be perceived to be (Clifton et al., 2007). As a result, there is concern that

inappropriate policy and investment initiatives will be directed at the pedestrian

environment (Landis et al., 2001). Recognizing this situation, the goal of this paper is

to summarize the dialogue and debate on pedestrian level of service measurements

and lend ideas on how the process can be improved. The paper begins with a

discussion on the myriad of factors and elements that may contribute to a walkable

environment. It then draws on these to assess and critique the existing

methodologies that measure the quality of the pedestrian environment. The last

section will focus on identifying shortcomings of the existing tools and measures and

ways to improve the process will be discussed and recommended.

DEFINING AND DISSECTING THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT

The literature on what elements come together to define a walkable urban

environment is quite extensive. A majority of this research limit measures of interest to

more macro-scale elements such as land use mix, density, and street patterns (Frank

and Engelke, 2001; Greenwald and Boarnet, 2001; Handy et al., 2002; Saelens et al.,

2003). This body of work has generally found that areas with higher residential and

commercial densities, higher intersection densities, and a functional mixing of land

uses in close proximity to where people live and work are associated with higher

levels of walking and cycling (Frank and Pivo, 1994; Frank et al., 2005). What these

A. Devlin

Page 5

studies fail to capture, however, are the micro-scale environmental elements that

frame the suitability for walking in a given area. These may include the street façade

and sidewalk treatments, building site design and street furniture (Figure 1)

(Zacharias, 2001). There is an emerging argument that these elements and other like

them have a strong influence on how the pedestrian perceives the walking

environment (Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2003). This argument is justified by Rapoport

(1987) who states that because pedestrians move at a much slower pace than

vehicles they are more aware and sensitive to their surroundings. As a result,

pedestrians require a high number of “noticeable differences” in the form of street

furniture, destinations, building types and styles and signage to make the walking

environment enjoyable.

A number of papers have

attempted to articulate and

assess the relative influence of

var ious micro-scale built

environment elements that may

a f f e c t a pedestrian’s

assessment of the quality of the

walking environment. Craig et

al. (2002) describes 18 elements

that may lend to creating a

walkable environment. These

included visual interest (i.e. type

and variety of buildings and

building design), traffic threats

(i.e. speed of and separation from traffic), and the inclusiveness of pedestrians (i.e.

pedestrian-oriented buildings, signage and amenities). Owen et al (2004) developed

a comprehensive list of over 60 micro-scale elements that influence walking,

including safety from traffic, presence of continuous sidewalks, presence of street

crossings, degree of crowding, sidewalk environment (i.e. seating, garbage can,

planter boxes), route directness, site design, and visual interest and stimuli. Pikora et

al (2002) also identifies over 40 environmental components that contribute to overall

functionality, safety, aesthetics, and destinations. The full lists of environmental

Figure 1: Pedestrian Friendly Street in Aspen, CO. Notepedestrian-scale signage, building setback, placement oftrees and furniture and sidewalk treatment. Source: PPS(http://www.pps.org).

A. Devlin

Page 6

elements and components identified by Craig et al. (2002) and Owen et al. (2004)

are found in Appendix A.

Studies have been conducted that offer empirical evidence of the influence of

micro-scale environmental elements on defining the quality of the pedestrian

environment. Research by Humpel et al. (2002), Giles-Corti and Donovan (2003), and

Saelens et al. (2003) found highly walkable environments are positively correlated

with strong aesthetic qualities, higher perceptions of pedestrian safety and access to

appropriate facilities. Brownson et al. (2004) surveyed residents in the San Diego area

and demonstrated that characteristics like a pedestrian-oriented walking

environment, stimulating neighbourhood aesthetics and neighbourhood safety

contributed to a more enjoyable walking environment. These studies and other like

them support the idea that what defines the quality of the pedestrian environment is

complex. The presence and quality of these types of features needs to be assessed

in order to better plan for successful pedestrian environments.

MEASURING THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT

Existing Approach

The most widely used method to assess the quality of the pedestrian environment is

the pedestrian Level-of-Service (LOS) measurement (Kerridge et al., 2001). This

method employs a letter scale from “A” to “F” to measure and describe the overall

walking conditions of the pedestrian environment. An LOS “A” is considered an ideal

environment while LOS “F” would be the worst or most unfitting for a pedestrian

(Fruin, 1971). The most common application of the pedestrian LOS methodology is to

measure the capacity and flow characteristics of pedestrian facilities (Petritsch et al.,

2006). Here, sidewalks and pathways that have unimpeded flow and an abundance

of additional capacity are considered to be the most ideal environments for

pedestrians (see Figure 2). Conversely, those streetscapes or intersections

characterized by high degrees of crowding are deemed to be ill suited for optimal

pedestrian movement. Another common application of the pedestrian LOS

methodology is to assess the pedestrian environment in terms of the ease with which

streets can be crossed (presence and timing of crossing zones) and sidewalk and

A. Devlin

Page 7

pathway continuity (Dixon, 1996). Where more of these features exist, the better the

environment is deemed to be pedestrian-friendly. These methods of assessing the

built environment in terms of flow, movement and

capacity have been normalized in the Highway

Capacity Manual (HCM), the industry standard

guidelines for evaluating the pedestrian

environment (TRB, 2000). Indeed, many major

United States metropolitan areas including New

York City and Baltimore have adopted this

methodology into their practical planning practice

to assess and better plan for the pedestrian

environment (Baltimore Metropolitan Council, 2004;

NYC DCP, 2006).

Strengths and Weaknesses of Existing Approach

The more common pedestrian LOS applications

outlined above have several advantages which

makes their appealing to many municipalities and

planning agencies. First, these methodologies are

rather simple. It is relatively easy, for instance, to

collect and assess data on sidewalk continuity,

location of crosswalks and general flow

characteristics (Petritsch et al., 2006). Second, the

standardization of the pedestrian LOS that assesses

flow, movement and capacity characteristics in the HCM allows planners and

decision-makers to utilize pre-developed ways of assessing data and allows for easy

comparison of LOS ratings from a certain place and time and other location (NYC

DCP, 2006).

Numerous deficiencies and criticisms of the existing assessment approach have

been identified. Research by Khisty (1994), Jaskiewicz (1999), Phillips and Guttenplan

(2003), and Muraleetharan and Hagiwara (2007) points out that the existing

pedestrian LOS methodologies used in many North American jurisdictions are

Figure 2: Images of pedestrianLOS standards contained in theHighway Capacity Manual. LOSA is defined as the bestcondition. LOS F is consideredthe worst. Source: HCM, 2000.

A. Devlin

Page 8

inaccurate in that they do not reflect and incorporate other important elements that

aid in defining how walkable an environment is from the pedestrians perspective.

These include the myriad of factors discussed in the previous section and found in

Appendix A. By not incorporating and assessing these additional measures, it can be

argued that the existing, more common pedestrian LOS framework being used may

actually reinforce the perpetuation of plans, policies and initiatives that do not

favour walking and nonmotorized transportation. For instance, using these measures,

more traditional suburban streets and arterials can be developed with a continuous

sidewalk or pathway system and a large number of strategically placed crosswalks

can register a high level of service rating although walking may actually be quite

impractical and unexciting due to wide road widths, homogenous and uninteresting

site design, and the lack of pedestrian amenities and signage that characterize

many traditional suburban developments (Landis et al., 2001). Under current

methods, street furniture like benches, signage and planter boxes are actually

considered barriers that impede pedestrian flow and therefore contribute negatively

to a successful pedestrian environment (NYC DCP, 2006). It would appear, then, that

a complete shift in thinking about the pedestrian environment is required on the part

of municipalities and planning agencies to develop and use more accurate and

appropriate LOS measurements.

ARTICULATING A NEW DIRECTION

Despite the abundance of criticism, much of the work directed at improving the

pedestrian LOS methodology is focused on strengthening the current applications of

assessing pedestrian flow and the availability of pedestrian facilities and

infrastructure (Baltes and Chu, 2002). Although important in certain respects, this

work does little to push assessment methodologies towards a more comprehensive

framework like that called for by Rapoport (1987). Where research has been

directed at explicitly articulating a more appropriate way for assessing the quality of

the pedestrian environment, it is scattered throughout the literature (Gallin, 2001).

This section will draw on this body of work to bring together and articulate the various

ideas for improving the pedestrian LOS measurement.

A. Devlin

Page 9

What Needs To Be Measured?

There are a number of objective and subjective elements that contribute to defining

the pedestrian environment (see Appendix A). It is impossible to measure, let alone

know, every factor that is most important to residents who walk or cycle. Although

there are currently no standard or common ways of establishing what these factors

(Handy and Clifton, 2001), the literature points to several ways of collecting this

information. Surveys, interviews and focus groups, for instance, can be used

determine what certain streetscape elements are the most important (or not) for

walking environments (Pikora et al., 2003). Surveys can be developed to ask people

to consider aspects of the built environment that might support or impede walking in

their neighbourhood and how the design of these and other places may be

improved to facilitate walking (Day et al., 2006). Surveys, however, may take a

substantial amount of time and money to undertake, something many municipalities

may not have (Day et al., 2006). In their place, municipalities and agencies may turn

to the literature. This paper has demonstrated that many studies have looked at

which elements lend the most influence to defining walkable environments. These

could be used as a foundation for what a municipality or agency may want to

assess. The relatively low cost of this option may make it more appealing for many

municipalities.

How Should These Elements Be Measured?

Many of the elements identified by pedestrians that define the quality of the walking

environment can be difficult to quantify or measure (Khisty, 1994). For instance, issues

may arise in how to effectively assess the visual stimulus or aesthetical qualities of a

streetscape. The literature provides an established body of work that offers numerous

ways to quantify or measure these subjective qualities. For instance, pedestrian

safety may be measured in terms of amount of quality of pedestrian-scale lighting,

the presence of clear sightlines, or the amount of street parking separating

pedestrians from traffic (Hess et al., 1999; Landis et al., 2001; Chu et al., 2004). Visual

and aesthetic quality may be measured by the presence of historical buildings and

unique architecture, public art and street furniture and the building setback from the

sidewalk/street (Gallin, 2001). Field surveys undertaken by municipal or agency staff

or pedestrians themselves may be used to identify and record the pertinent built

A. Devlin

Page 10

environment characteristics (Day et al., 2006). It is also possible that many

municipalities or agencies will already have information on many of these elements

scattered throughout various departments (Handy and Clifton, 2001). In this case, it

would be a matter of collecting all of the pertinent data and standardizing it into a

format that will allow for a meaningful analysis. Geographic Information Systems

(GIS) can be used to efficiently map and analyze the distribution of key elements like

street furniture, historical buildings, crosswalks and sidewalks, and areas of on-street

parking an create databases of the features (Aultman-Hall et al., 1997). Lee and

Moudon (2006) used GIS to capture and map various environmental elements

including the location of trees and street furniture, crosswalks and topography in a

study that explored the correlates of walking and cycling. Combining different map

layers of various features in a GIS enables the planner or decision-maker to produce

a visual representation of where environments are more conducive to pedestrian

activity and those that are not and require more immediate attention.

What Should A New Methodology Look Like?

The potential exists to identify and measure additional elements and factors that

contribute to the quality of the pedestrian environment in a pedestrian LOS

assessment tool. Recent work, however, has explore the relevance of the traditional

LOS scale of measurement to effectively and accurate assess the myriad of factors

that may define the pedestrian environment. Phillips and Guttenplan (2003), for

instance, lament that agencies should not focus efforts to utilize the broad LOS “A-F”

categorization. These categories often aggregate and combine various elements

that contribute to a certain theme or major characteristics like “safety” or “visual

aesthetics” and apply a letter grade to each one. The authors note that a variety of

factors that influence the quality of the pedestrian environment may not readily lend

themselves to such an aggregated and rigid scale of measurement and therefore

call for tools that assess the overall quality of the pedestrian environment.

Environmental audit instruments offer a potentially more comprehensive and flexible

alternative. These tools allow the user to rate and evaluate individual elements of the

built environment that are defined as influencing the quality of the streetscape.

(Clifton et al., 2007). In this sense, they allow planners and decision-makers to

pinpoint those exact elements that contribute to or detract from a walkable

A. Devlin

Page 11

streetscape. Audit instruments have been developed and implemented in Australia

(Pikora et al., 2002) and in the United States (Day et al., 2006; Clifton et al., 2007) that

allow the user to evaluate various elements of the built environment. The testing of

these instruments has revealed these instruments to be relatively consistent, reliable

and easy to use (Moudon and Lee, 2003). Given their potential to include countless

variables that may be evaluated these instruments may result in more detailed

characterization of the environment. As a result, however, they may require more

time, resources and commitment to develop and administer (Clifton et al., 2007). An

example of an environmental audit instrument developed by Clifton et al. (2007) is

found in Appendix B.

CASE STUDY

Fort Collins, Colorado – A Progressive Pedestrian LOS

The pedestrian LOS developed for Fort Collins, Colorado embodies many of the

elements discussed in the previous section and serves as a practical example of the

potential for developing and implementing progressive tools to assess the quality

and performance of the pedestrian environment. In 1996, the City of Fort Collins

developed a comprehensive pedestrian plan that effectively placed the needs of

the pedestrian as a primary planning goal for the City. A new pedestrian LOS was

seen as a key tool that would aid the City in analyzing existing pedestrian conditions

and proposed public and private improvement projects (City of Fort Collins, 1996).

The LOS was developed through extensive consultation work. Pedestrian focus

groups, Fort Collins Transportation Board officials, Street Standards Committee, and

those in attendance at numerous local workshops and outreach initiatives were

allowed to actively contribute in the planning and development process. The final

product assesses pedestrian conditions based on directness (measurement of

walking trip length), continuity (measurement of completeness of sidewalk and

pathway system), street crossings (measurement of pedestrian safety in crossing a

street), visual interest and amenities (measurement of the pedestrian system

attractiveness and features) and security (measurement of the pedestrian’s sense of

security). A variety of variables like number and location of crosswalks, building

setbacks, street furniture and pedestrian lighting are included under each category.

A. Devlin

Page 12

The city also established threshold values for each category of measurement. These

thresholds define the minimum acceptable standard for each element. They also

have strong policies that require new public and private developments as well as

major street improvements and redevelopment should adhere to the pedestrian LOS

standards and attempt to attain the required threshold values. The Fort Collins

Pedestrian LOS included in this paper in Appendix C.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing pedestrian LOS methodologies are entrenched in an ideology based on

ease of movement and efficiency of the pedestrian system. These initiatives neglect

to account for other subjective factors that are proving to be influential in defining

the quality of the walking environment and, as a result, may lend to the perpetual

(re) development of truly unwalkable spaces. This paper has demonstrated that

potential exists to develop an appropriate quality of service assessment

methodology for the pedestrian environment. To do so, three key aspects must be

overcome. These are identifying what elements need to be measured, how to assess

the elements and incorporating these into an appropriate assessment framework.

The literature and progressive practical examples like the For Collins pedestrian LOS

methodology provide a framework for how to develop an appropriate tool. It should

be acknowledged, however, that substantial efforts would be required on the part

of municipalities and planning agencies to initiate and undertake these projects. If

municipalities wish to strive towards creating more walkable spaces, the complexity

and challenge of developing an appropriate assessment framework should not

deter them.

REFERENCES

Aultman-Hall, L., Roorda, M., & Baetz, B. W. (1997). Using GIS for evaluation ofneighborhood pedestrian accessibility. Journal of Urban Planning andDevelopment, 123(1), 10-17.

Baltes, M. R., & Chu, X. (2002). Pedestrian level of service for midblock streetcrossings. Transportation Research Record, 1818, 125-133.

A. Devlin

Page 13

Baltimore Metropolitan Council. (2004). Bicycle level of service update & pedestrianlevel of service evaluation. Accessed February 2008 from the World WideWeb: http://www.baltometro.org/reports/BikePedLOS.pdf

Benfield, F. K. (2003). Solving sprawl: Models of smart growth in communities acrossAmerica. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Brownson, R. C., Chang, J. J., Eyler, A. A., & Ainsworth, B. E. (2004). Measuring theenvironment for friendliness toward physical activity: A comparison of thereliability of 3 questionnaires. American Journal of Public Health, 94(3), 473-483.

Chu, X., Guttenplan, M., & Baltes, M. R. (2004). Why people cross where they do: Therole of the street environment. Transportation Research Record, 1878, 3-10.

City of Fort Collins. (1996). Pedestrian Level of Service 1996. Accessed February 2008from the World Wide Web:http://fcgov.com/transportationplanning/pdf/levelofservice.pdf

Clifton, K., Livismith, A., & Rodriguez, D. (2007). The development and testing of anaudit for the pedestrian environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1-2), 95-110.

Craig, C. L., Brownson, R. C., Cragg, S. E., & Dunn, A. L. (2002). Exploring the effect ofthe environment on physical activity: A study examining walking to work.American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2S), 36-43.

Day, K., Boarnet, M. G., Alfonzo, M., & Forsyth, A. (2006). The Irvine–Minnesotainventory to measure built environments development. American Journal ofPreventive Medicine, 30(2), 144-152.

Dixon, L. B. (1996). Bicycle and pedestrian level-of-service performance measuresand standards for congestion management systems. Transportation ResearchRecord, 1538, 1-9.

Frank, L., & Engelke, P. (2001). The built environment and human activity: Exploringthe impacts of urban form on public health. Journal of Planning Literature,16(2), 202-218.

Frank, L., Schmid, T., Sallis, J., Chapman, J., & Saelens, B. (2005). Linking objectivelymeasured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findingsfrom SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 117-125.

Frank, L. D., & Pivo, G. (1994). Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of threemodes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. TransportationResearch Record, 1466, 44-52.

Fruin, J. (1971). Pedestrian Planning and Design. New York: Metropolitan Associationof Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Inc.

A. Devlin

Page 14

Gallin, N. (2001). Quantifying pedestrian friendliness: Guidelines for assessingpedestrian level of service. Proceedings from Australia: Walking the 21stCentury Conference.

Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J. (2003). Relative influence of individual, socialenvironmental, and physical environmental correlates of walking. AmericanJournal of Public Health, 93(9), 1583-1589.

Greenwald, M. J., & Boarnet, M. G. (2001). The built environment as a determinant ofwalking behavior: Analyzing non-work pedestrian travel Portland, Oregon.Transportation Research Record, 1780, 33-41.

Handy, S., & Clifton, K. (2001). Evaluating neighborhood accessibility: possibilities andpracticalities. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 4(2-3), 67-78.

Handy, S. L., Boarnet, M. G., Ewing, R., & Killingsworth, R. E. (2002). How the builtenvironment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. AmericanJournal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2S), 64-73.

Hess, P. M., Moudon, A. V., Snyder, M. C., & Stanilov, K. (1999). Site design andpedestrian travel. Transportation Research Record, 1674, 9-19.

Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated withadults' participation in physical activity: A review. American Journal ofPreventive Medicine, 22 (3). 188-199.

Jaskiewicz, F. (2001). Pedestrian level of service based on trip quality. Proceedingsfrom Urban Street Symposium Conference.

Kerridge, J., Hine, J., & Wigan, M. (2001). Agent-based modelling of pedestrianmovements: The questions that need to be asked and answered.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(3), 327-341.

Khisty, C. (1994). Evaluation of pedestrian facilities: Beyond the level-of-serviceconcept. Transportation Research Board, 1438, 45-50.

Landis, B. W., Vattikuti, V. R., Ottenberg, R. M., & McLeod, D. S. (2001). Modeling theroadside walking environment: Pedestrian level of service. TransportationResearch Record, 1773, 82-88.

Lee, C., & Moudon, A. V. (2006). Correlates of walking for transportation or recreationpurposes. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(1), 77-98.

Moudon, A. V., & Lee, C. (2003). Walking and bicycling: An evaluation ofenvironmental audit instruments. American Journal of Health Promotion,18(1), 21-37.

A. Devlin

Page 15

Muraleetharan, T., & Hagiwara, T. (2007). Overall level of servce of urban walkingenvironment and its influence on pedestrian route chice behavior: Analysis ofpedestrian travel in Sapporo, Japan. Transportation Research Record, 2002, 7-17.

New York City Department of City Planning (NYC DCP). (2006). NYC Pedestrian Levelof Service STudy - Phase I, 2006. Accessed February 2008 from the World WideWeb: www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/transportation/td_ped_level_serv.shtml

Owen, N., Humpel, N., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., & Sallis, J. (2004). Understandingenvironmental influences on walking: Review and research agenda.American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(1), 67-76.

Petritsch, T. A., Landis, B. W., McLeod, P. S., & Huang, H. F. (2006). Pedestrian level-of-service model for urban arterial facilities with sidewalks. TransportationResearch Record, 1982, 84-89.

Phillips, R., & Guttenplan, M. (2003). A review of approaches for assessing multimodalquality of service. Journal of Public Transportation, 6(4), 19.

Pikora, T. (2003). Developing a framework for assessment of the environmentaldeterminants of walking and cycling. Social Science & Medicine, 56(8), 1693-1703.

Pikora, T., Bull, F. C. L., Jamrozik, K., & Knuiman, M. (2002). Developing a reliable auditinstrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity.American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(3), 187-194.

Rapoport, A. (1987). Pedestrian Street use: Culture and perception. In Anne Moudon(ed) Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Saelens, B., Sallis, J., Black, J. B., & Chen, D. (2003). Neighborhood-based differencesin physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. American Journal ofPublic Health, 93(9), 1552-1558.

Saelens, B., Sallis, J., & Frank, L. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking andcycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planningliterature. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2), 80-91.

Transportation Research Board (TRB). (2000). Highway Capacity Manual.Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.

Zacharias, J. (2001). Pedestrian behavior pedestrian behavior and perception inurban walking environments. Journal of Planning Literature, 16(1), 3-18.

A. Devlin

Page 16

APPENDIX A

BUILT ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS

A. Devlin

Page 17

Source: Craig et al. (2002).

A. Devlin

Page 18

Source: Owen et al. (2004).

A. Devlin

Page 19

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT INSTRUMENT

A. Devlin

Page 20

Source: Clifton et al. (2007).

A. Devlin

Page 21

APPENDIX C

FORT COLLINS, CO PEDESTRIAN LOS

A. Devlin

Page 22