Normalisation

Walkability in Greater Vancouver Region

Dependent on Socioeconomic Status?

West Vancouver    

 
Abstract
Introduction
Data
Methodology
Results
Discussion
References  
Miscellaneous
 









Green circle: area with a high density of intersection, and therefore a high accessibility to destinations.
Red circle: area with low density intersections and little accesibilty to destinations

Neighbourhoods can be divided into disconnected areas. The dead-ends and three-way intersections force a pedestrian to take longer routes to cross the neighbourhood from north to south. This can discourage people from walking.
 
 
 

Methodology

    Originally, it was the aim of this project to create a model with the ArcGIS Model Builder which outputs calculated walkability scores on a CT level. However, while creating the model, we realized that there are some analysis steps which we were not able to implement in ArcGIS, but for which we had to transfer the data from GIS into another program to modify it and then import the modified data back into GIS for additional analysis and display.

    We ended up creating models for the measurement of each variable and one model to create the walkability index based on all the different measures.


Measurement of walkability variables


Measurement of Residential Density

    Residential land-use per CT is selected from the land-use database and the number of dwelling units per CT is isolated from the Census 2006 data. Net residential density is then calculated by dividing the number of dwellings per CT by the residential area of the CT.

Map: Residential Density

Measurement of Street Connectivity

    Areas with higher densities of intersections are assumed to offer more destinations for pedestrians (i.e. shops, restaurants, parks, schools) within walking distance from home (Ackerson 2005). Additionally, the hierarchy of intersections (i.e. dead-ends, 3-way/ 4-way intersections) within a study area is a proxy for the variety of route choices available to pedestrians in a given area. As a lot of dead-ends require people to take longer routes to their destinations, they reduce the pedestrian through-traffic and are less walkable. 3-way intersections are an indication of ‘moderate’ walkability and four-way intersections are an indicator of ‘good’ walkability (Ackerson 2005).

        Road intersections are identified from the streets dataset using the “Network Analyst”-tool, and connectivity is based upon the number of connections at each intersection with neighbourhood streets and major streets. Intersections with highways or highway ramps are excluded as the are considered not walkable. The intersections are spatially joined to the CT in which they lie. 

    In the intersection density calculation, only intersections with three or more unique intersecting streets are included.  Different intersections were identified depending on whether an intersection is a three-way intersection (moderate walkability) or a four-way intersection (good walkability) and depending on whether an intersection only connects neighbourhood roads (good walkability) or also  major roads with a high traffic volume (only moderate walkability). The density is based on the number of intersection per CT area. The results of the density calculations are classified into deciles and normalized on a scale from 1 to 10. The final intersection density of a CT is created by summing the different densities with a higher weight given to four-way intersections and intersections between neighbourhood roads.

Map: Street Connectivity, GVRD 


Measurement of Land-use Mix

    The land-use mix measure, or entropy score, was complex to create as the accessible land-use data is grouped into very broad classes (residential, commercial, governmental and institutional, resource and industrial, parks and recreation, and open area). As the GVRD does not only contain urban, but also less populated areas, non developed areas (parks and recreation, open area) encompass large areas, especially at the CTs located at the edges of the GVRD. These “non developed” areas are not suitable for measuring a land-use mix that encourages walking. However, entropy score calculations just reflect the mixture of land-uses, not the land-use categories which are contained in that mixture. 

    To overcome the problem of large open areas and the potential to skew the land-use mix calculation, the land-use mix measure was based only on the developed area. Developed area was defined as the sum of the areas belonging to the following land-use categories: residential, commercial, governmental and institutional, and industrial. In GIS, the land-use parcels are geometrically intersected with the CTs in order to assign them to the CT in which they are located. The area covered by each land-use category within a CT is calculated using a Pivot table in a spreadsheet application. Based on this, entropy land-use scores are created for each CT, calculated via the following formula:


k is the category of land-use, p is the proportion of the developed land area devoted to a specific land-use, is the number of land-use categories in a CT.

    The results of the entropy calculation range from 0 to 1, with 0 representing a completely homogeneous area (the CT is covered by one single land-use type) and 1 representing heterogeneity (all land-use categories covering the area of a CTs are equally distributed).

Map: Land use, GVRD

Map: Land use mix, GVRD 

Measurement of Topographic Variation

    The DEMs covering the GVRD area were converted to polygons and the polygons were spatially joined to the CTs. The Standard Deviation of elevation values within a CT is measured in order to characterize variations in  terrain. As the GVRD area also covers parts of the North Shore Mountains, the obtained values were not classified into deciles, as this would have biased the classifications scheme.  Rather, all CTs with an extremely high standard deviation were group into one class.

Map: Topographic Variation

Measurement of Access to Public Transport

    A core component to the success of a city development oriented away from car-dependency rests in the capacity of residents to access transit stops. Schlossberg and Brown (2004) found that people are most likely to walk to transit stops if the stops are within a five minute walk. Generally, this equals a distance of 400 m.

    Buffers of 400m are created around each busstop. In order to minimize the influence of the differences in CT size, the buffers are clipped to the developed area within each CT. Then, the proportion of the developed area per CT which falls in this buffer is calculated, ranging from 0 (no bus stop buffer in the developed area of this CT) to 1 (developed area of this CT is fully covered by buffer around bus stops.

Map: Bus stop buffer, GVRD   

Map: Access to public transport, GVRD


Creating the Walkability Index

NormaliZation

In order to create a standard measure, z-scores are calculated for the results obtained in the five characteristics of built environment. The results are classified into deciles and the groups are recorded from 1 to 10. CTs with 1st decile values are assigned a z-score of 1, CTs with values falling into the second decile are given a z-score of 2 and so on, to the CTs with values from the 10th decile which were assigned a z-score of 10.

Calculating Walkability Indices

Walkability Index I:

Applied in: Frank et al. 2009 - the original equation additionally considered net-retail floor area, for which we were not able to obtain the data

Walkability Index II:

Applied in: Frank et al. 2005 - the land-use entropy score for this paper was based on the following land use categories: residential, commercial and office area. The land-use data for GVRD is classified differently

Walkability Index III:

Applied in: Leslie et al. 2007 - the original equation additionally considered net-retail floor are, for which we were not able to obtain the data


Creation of a comprehensive walkability index for the GVRD:

    In order to incorporate the additional input features which had been identified as being influential to walking behaviour (access to public transport and topographic variability) to the existing walkability equations, it is analysed whether there is a correlation between the characteristics and the walkability indices that were adopted from previous studies.

    As for the topographic variability, almost no correlation between the walkability scores gained in “Walkability Index III” and the z-scores assigned to the topographic variability are found (r2 value: 0.05). A global linear regression model overestimates the walkability values in the outer suburbs of the GVRD and underestimates the values for the urban area in Vancouver. This is easily explained by the fact that the Lower Mainland areas of the GVRD are very flat but have a very suburban (not very walkable) character. In Vancouver and Burnaby however, there is some variation in the topography, but these areas show many of the environmental characteristics that encourage walking. Thus, giving topography a high weight in the equation will change the results tremendously. However, as especially in Vancouver, there is some topographic variability which can influence the walking behaviour (it might be impossible for older people to walk up from 1st street to Broadway in some areas of Kitsilano), topographic variability is not excluded from the equation but given the weight of 1.

    As for the access to public transport, a slightly positive correlation between the scores of "Walkability Index III" and the z-scores of the access to public transport facilities is found (y= 1.66+ 0.475x, r2=0.41). As most CTs show a standard deviations between -1.5 Std. Dev. and +1.5 Std. Dev., it is assumed that, when adding the access to public transport to the walkability score equation, the main results will remain stable with some differentiation especially in the outer areas. Therefore, the access to public transport is given a weight of 2.

    Following the previously developed equations, land-use mixture is assigned the highest weight (3), while net-residential density and intersection density are assigned the same weight (2).

Walkability Index VI:


Interactions between Walkability Index and socioeconomic factors:

Creating an index of socioeconomic status (SES)

Medium household income in CAD is used as primary SES indicator and isolated from the Census 2006 database. The proportion of owner-occupied private dwellings and the total number of dwellings per CT is applied to adjust the income categorization and in order to integrate property assets. For the SES index, the ownership proportion and the values of the household income are classified into quartiles and the groups are recorded from 1 to 4. CTs with 1st decile values are assigned a z-score of 1, CTs with values from the 4th decile are assigned a z-score of 4. In the final index, the household income is weighted three times the ownership proportion.

Map: Socioeconomic Index Map, GVRD

Assessing Interactions between SES and Walkability

    In order to remove the influence of size and population variation in the CTs, the socioeconomic status index and the walkability score are filtered, so that they include only urban CTs. Therefore all CTs that have a population density of less than 200 persons per square kilometre are removed.

    A global linear regression model is run to analyze whether there are correlations between the socioeconomic status and the walkability of a CT. Besides, the CTs with the lowest and highest 25% values for the walkability index and the SES index are selected and the overlapping CTs are identified:

low walkability
and low SES
low walkability
and high SES
high walkability
and low SES
high walkability
and high SES


Helena Weiner and Mie Winstrup, 2010 | University of British Columbia