Journal of Urbanism

ISSN: 1754-9175 (Print) 1754-9183 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjou20

Walkable streets: pedestrian behavior, perceptions

and attitudes

Vikas Mehta

To cite this article: Vikas Mehta (2008) Walkable streets: pedestrian behavior, perceptions and
attitudes, Journal of Urbanism, 1:3, 217-245, DOI: 10.1080/17549170802529480

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549170802529480

Published online: 26 Nov 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5237

View related articles

Citing articles: 26 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjou20
Journal of Urbanism
Vol. 1, No. 3, November 2008, 217–245

RESEARCH PAPER
Walkable streets: pedestrian behavior, perceptions and attitudes
Vikas Mehta*

School of Architecture and Community Design, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

Urban designers are interested in the environmental qualities of places that make them
better for walking, not only as settings for physical activity, but also as sensorial and
social settings. Research in walkability lacks qualitative studies that address the
microscale analyses of the environment. This paper is an empirical examination of
the relationship of the physical, land-use, and social characteristics of the environment
at the microscale to people’s behavior and perceptions toward walking. Using the data
from surveys and interviews, this research emphasizes the integration of user
perceptions and subjective measures to understand the impact of environmental
characteristics on walking behavior on Main Streets. Adding to previous research, this
study demonstrates the significance of social qualities in supporting walking. The
findings expand our understanding of the hierarchy and criteria of walking needs and
suggest that, given a safe and comfortable setting, people look for usefulness, sense of
belonging and pleasurability as additional and distinct needs to enhance their walking
experience.
Keywords: walkability; urban design; streets; subjective environmental perceptions;
social qualities

Introduction
Walking, much like any other human behavior, is largely influenced by cultural factors, by
individual circumstances, preferences and characteristics, and by environmental factors.
Researchers in the fields of public health, medicine, and urban planning have focused on
identifying individual and group-level characteristics and environmental factors that influence
walking as a physical activity. However, urban designers are concerned with the environmental
qualities that make for better places to walk – not only as a physical activity, but also for
the sensorial and experiential pleasure that may be derived from such environments. While the
planning and design of the environment must address various levels of needs for walking, the
aspects of the environment that impact the sensory and social qualities of the setting are
particularly significant to the field of urban design. This research builds on Alfonzo’s (2005)
five-part model of hierarchy of walking needs and on Southworth’s (2005) six-part criteria for
design of successful walking environments; and on the recent empirical work of Day et al.
(2006) and Brown et al. (2007) on walking perceptions. In addressing the microscale urban
design qualities of the environment, this paper is concerned with the perception and effects of
safety, comfort, and pleasurability on walking behavior on Main Streets.
Furthermore, the effect of two other important factors is introduced also: usefulness – the
ability of the environment to serve basic needs and create place-attachment; and the sense of
belonging created by the presence of community places. This study emphasizes the integration
of subjective measures and employs surveys and interviews to understand the impact of

*Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1754-9175 print/ISSN 1754-9183 online
# 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17549170802529480
http://www.informaworld.com
218 V. Mehta

environmental characteristics on walking behavior on Main Streets in urban neighborhoods.

By using extensive surveys and interviews with people who live in the neighborhood or
nearby and are familiar with the neighborhood, the study is able to obtain rich qualitative
data on social aspects that affect walking behavior on the Main Street.

Environmental characteristics and walking

Primary physical activities of children and adults include play, walking or cycling to work,
school or to other destinations such as recreation centers, parks, and playgrounds. A new
field of Active Living Research has emerged in recent years, and researchers in the fields of
public health, medicine and urban planning are paying special attention to walking as a
primary means of getting the daily recommended levels of physical activity. In the
planning literature, the most common research areas dealing with aspects of the
environment that affect walking behavior comprise the three ‘‘Ds’’ of the built
environment – density, diversity, and design (Cervero and Kockelman 1997). Most
studies aim to determine environmental correlates of walking, considering aspects such as
the compactness of development patterns, residential and employment density, access to
and diversity of land-use mix, and design features such as shade, scenery, aesthetic
characteristics of the local environment, local shopping, distance to retail, and the
presence of attractive stores and houses (for example, Handy et al. 1998, Ball et al. 2001,
Brownson et al. 2001, Handy and Clifton 2001, Humpel et al. 2002, Saelens et al. 2003,
Krizek and Johnson 2006, and Frank et al. 2007, among others).
Other measures of the built environment studied in relation to walking behavior are
the transportation infrastructure, access to transit, the accessibility of facilities, access to
recreational facilities, intersection density, the presence of sidewalks, recreation space in
the neighborhood, street pattern and connectivity, and the neighborhood type (for
example, Friedman et al. 1994, Humpel et al. 2002, Saelens et al. 2003, Transportation
Research Board 2005, and Frank et al. 2007). There is also growing research on pedestrian
behavior as it relates to people’s perceptions of safety, aesthetics, and other neighborhood
characteristics (for example, Ross 2000, Zacharias 2001b, Day et al. 2006, Handy et al.
2006, and Brown et al. 2007). This paper contributes to the limited qualitative research on
walking behavior and provides a new conceptual framework built on empirical research
from this study and existing theoretical models.

Walking and urban design: a conceptual framework

The desire to make environments walkable has been an inherent goal in urban design
much before the current emphasis on walking as a health-related activity. Urban design
researchers have always been interested in the sensorial qualities that make better places
for pedestrian movement (for example, Lynch 1960, 1980, Cullen 1961, Bacon 1967, Gehl
1987, Rapoport 1990, Jacobs 1993, Bosselmann 1998, and Isaacs 2000). At the same time,
social commentators and some urban designers have emphasized the role of social
qualities of the environment such that besides the sensorial qualities (urban design as
visual art) urban designers are also interested in the environment as a social setting – a
place that provides sensory stimulation but also supports the desired behaviors of its users.
Brown et al. (2007), for example, draw attention to the need for a transactional approach
that emphasizes the role of physical, social, psychological, and cultural factors in
determining behavior. The present study builds on this broadened view of the role of the
environment in supporting walking behavior.
Alfonzo (2005) argues that research in walking behavior lacks a transdisciplinary
theoretical model to explain how individual, group, environmental, regional, and other
 Journal of Urbanism 219

factors affect walking. Alfonzo proposes a socio-ecological model of walking consisting of

a hierarchy of five levels of needs in the decision-making process of walking. These, it is
suggested, are feasibility, accessibility, safety, comfort, and pleasurability. Similarly,
Southworth (2005) suggests six criteria for the design of a successful walking environment:
connectivity, linkage with other modes, fine-grained land-use patterns, safety, path
quality, and path context. Although Southworth is not concerned with feasibility, the
three criteria of his model – connectivity, linkage with other modes, and fine grained land-
use patterns – in lieu of accessibility seem more appropriate for capturing environmental
features related to walking because they distinguish between path network at a
neighborhood scale, the transportation connectivity at the city scale, and the grain of
the land-use at the neighborhood scale. Path quality and path context in Southworth’s
model cover similar grounds as comfort and pleasurability in Alfonzo’s. Both models
discuss the importance of an individual’s ability to get to a destination, their perceived
safety, the variety in the land uses, and the comfort and sensory pleasure offered by the
walking environment. However, neither model addresses the importance and relevance
of usefulness of the land uses and activities on the path or destination of the walking
environment. More importantly, neither model takes into consideration the significance
of destinations that are perceived as places for social gathering on walking behavior.
This paper attempts to fill this void by closely examining the significance of the
usefulness of the environment and of places of social meaning on walking behavior.
Hence, it tries to capture the microscale-level physical, land use, and social
characteristics that influence walking. The research question is as follows. What are
the microscale environmental characteristics and criteria that influence walking
behavior on Main Streets?
Figure 1 shows a conceptual framework for the study that suggests that physical,
land-use, and social factors constitute the characteristics of the street. Physical factors
include characteristics such as wide sidewalks, shade-providing trees and canopies,
interesting and engaging storefronts, signage and displays, street furniture, and
articulated building facades; land-use factors include variety and range of businesses,
uniqueness of goods and services, occurrence of events organized or supported by
businesses; and social factors include community-gathering places, the presence of
people and activities, and real and perceived safety from crime. Such characteristics of
the street influence a user’s attitudes and perception, which also depend on cultural
factors and the user’s individual associations and background. Together, user

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of walking needs on Main Street.

220 V. Mehta

perceptions and street characteristics affect the overall perceived quality of the street,
which, based on existing concepts and theoretical frameworks (for example, Maslow
1954, Steele 1973, Alfonzo 2005, and Southworth 2005), is presented here as a set of
seven categories: feasibility, accessibility, usefulness, safety, comfort, sensory pleasure,
and sense of belonging. The existing literature in walking behavior is discussed below in
the context of these seven categories.

Feasibility and accessibility

Alfonzo (2005) suggests that feasibility and accessibility (in that order) are the first-order
needs of walking. Besides individual factors, the viability of any strolling or destination-
oriented walking trip may be limited by choice of mobility, time, and other responsibilities.
Once a walking trip is perceived to be feasible, the next factor influencing the walking trip
is its accessibility. Accessibility includes the ability of a person to be able to access the
destination; the distances to a destination; the physical and perceived barriers to walking
to a place; and the connectivity between the land uses. Two criteria suggested by
Southworth (2005) that deal with accessibility are connectivity and linkage with other
modes. While some studies (including Alfonzo’s) include the variety, quality, and quantity
of activities as part of accessibility, the conceptual framework used in the present study
groups these under another category called ‘‘usefulness.’’ This study is concerned with the
microscale characteristics of the neighborhood Main Street that support walking.
Therefore, it is assumed that first-order needs of feasibility and accessibility have already
been met for the person making the walking trip to the Main Street. Hence, feasibility and
accessibility are not examined in this study.

Usefulness
As mentioned above, this paper does not group usefulness of the environmental
characteristics with accessibility and treats it as an aspect in itself. Usefulness is the
ability for the environment to satisfy the individual’s basic day-to-day needs for
shopping, eating, entertainment, and so on; and this ability or lack thereof affects
walking behavior. This is similar to fine-grained land-use patterns, the third criterion
mentioned by Southworth (2005). Regarding neighborhoods, research suggests that
people are likely to walk to places with eating establishments such as restaurants and
cafes, a variety of shops, and the presence of retail and local shopping (for example,
Montgomery 1998, Hass-Klau et al. 1999, Handy and Clifton 2001, and Brown et al.
2007). However, not only the presence, but also the quality of goods and services
provided by businesses and other uses, and the quantity of such land uses, make the
environment useful and more desirable for walking. Usefulness translates the general
criteria of land-use diversity or fine-grained land use to make it meaningful to the
individual whose walking needs are being considered. Further, studies in phenomen-
ology suggest that by satisfying day-to-day needs, environments encourage repeated
visits and increased frequency of use. This increased frequency of use translates into a
familiarity with the environment and becomes a routine that creates a sense of place and
place-attachment for the users of the environment (for example, Seamon 1980). Seamon
suggests that when these repeated individual time–space routines come together at one
place they ‘‘may also produce a climate of familiarity which participants appreciate and
to which they also grow attached’’ (p. 159). Such time–space routines were at the core of
Jacobs’ (1961) observations on the life of the streets and sidewalks in Greenwich Village,
New York City. Hence, usefulness of the street results in possibly satisfying higher-order
needs that encourage walking to the Main Street.
 Journal of Urbanism 221

Safety
While the sense of real and perceived safety is affected by the characteristics of the
environment, it also affects the use of the environment. Previous research has shown that the
sense of perceived safety from crime on the street is affected by environmental characteristics
such as the physical condition and maintenance of the environment, the configuration of
streets and spaces, the types of land uses, the alterations and modifications made to the
environment, and the presence or absence of, and the kind of, people. Some studies show that
people perceived streets to be safer where there was a presence of stores and other non-
residential properties on the street (Perkins et al. 1993). Jacobs’ (1961) treatise on city streets
identified stores, bars, restaurants, and other ‘‘third places’’ (Oldenburg 1981) as basic
components of surveillance and safety throughout the day. Perkins (1986) (from Alfonzo
2005) found that personalization of property made the street environment appear safer, as
did the presence of streetlights, block watch signs, yard decorations, and private plantings
(Perkins et al. 1992). Conversely, a lack of territorial control made the street environment
perceptibly less safe (Taylor et al. 1984). Besides acting as a source of attention and interest, it
is also known that the presence of people increases the perception of safety of the physical
environment (Newman 1972). Various other studies have found the perception of safety to be
negatively affected by the presence of litter, graffiti, vandalism, and poorly maintained
buildings (Skogan and Maxfield 1981, Hope and Hough 1988, Perkins et al. 1992).
Perceived safety from traffic is another important factor related to walking behavior.
Studies regarding real and perceived safety from traffic suggest the importance of many
measures and physical features such as reducing street width and speed limits, introducing
traffic calming measures, curbside parking, trees or plantings to reduce or slow down
traffic, separate pedestrians from fast-moving vehicles, make street-crossing safer for
pedestrians, and so on (for example, Clarke and Dornfeld 1994, Craig et al. 2002).
Appleyard’s (1981) landmark work on street activity and traffic clearly established the
inverse relationship between traffic volume and neighboring behaviors and satisfaction
with one’s residential neighborhood. Thus, in the context of this study, safety is a person’s
ability to feel safe from the social and physical factors – from crime and traffic.

Comfort: environmental and physical

The level of comfort may be affected by myriad factors including weather, physical
conditions, perceived levels of safety, familiarity of the setting and people, convenience,
and so on. However, in the context of this study comfort is limited to the physical and
environmental affects of the environment to provide the ability for a person to conduct the
tasks of walking on the Main Street. Existing literature on the effects of environmental
factors on human behavior shows that comfortable microclimatic conditions, including
temperature, sunlight and shade, and wind, are important in supporting outdoor activities
(for example, Bosselmann et al. 1984). Good microclimatic conditions that may largely be
a consequence of man-made conditions altering the natural climate become a prerequisite
for supporting outdoor activities in public spaces. At the same time, beyond offering
protection from sun, wind, and rain, and providing a physiologically suitable setting, the
street environment as a milieu also needs to provide the various activities and standing
patterns of behavior that may potentially occur on the street within its cultural context
(Barker 1968, Rapoport 1969, 1977). To do so, the design of the street environment needs
to be anthropometrically and ergonomically sensitive (Croney 1971, Kanowitz and Sorkin
1983 cited in Lang 1987). Some of the physical characteristics identified as contributing to
walking behavior in public spaces such as Main Streets include generous sidewalk width,
trees, shade and shelter, an obstacle-free path, and traffic-calming strategies.
222 V. Mehta

Sensory pleasure
Pleasure derived through a sensory experience of the street depends on various stimuli
perceived from the environment – from the lights, sounds, smells, touches, colors, shapes,
patterns, textures, and so on, of the fixed, semi-fixed, and movable elements that make up
the street (Lang 1987, Bell et al. 1990, Rapoport 1990, Porteous 1996). It is argued that to
achieve sensory pleasure pedestrians prefer a moderate level of complexity resulting from
variety and novelty as well as order and coherence (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Nasar
1998). Scholars note that sensory stimuli at the street are perceived from, but are not
limited to, the characteristics of the edges of buildings that define the street, including
fenestration, shop windows and the goods in them, canopies, awnings, and signage
(Rapoport 1990), the street and sidewalk, including vehicles, street furniture, and all other
physical artifacts on it; natural features, such as landscape elements and trees; and people
and their activities, including movements, sounds, etc. (Zacharias 2001a). In sum, studies
conclude that people prefer public open spaces that provide a moderate level of culturally
acceptable sensory stimuli resulting in a complexity that heightens interest without
becoming over-stimulated and chaotic.

Sense of belonging: community places

This is an aspect that is ignored in the existing theoretical models and needs some elaboration.
There is limited research that specifically links walking behavior to the presence of
community places in or near the neighborhood. However, the literature on the community
places stressing their significance provides some useful background to examine their role in
encouraging walking. Sociologists have long emphasized the significance of the symbolic
dimension of shared experiences of people in a neighborhood. It is suggested that associations
with people, places, and events contributes to a sense of familiarity and belonging in the
community (Oldenburg 1981, Hester 1984). Places that help shape community attitudes, that
provide a continuity from past to present, that may often cater to mundane but essential
everyday functions, and that help in establishing their community’s identity, become
significant to the neighbors and achieve a social value and meaning (Lofland 1998, Johnston
2005). Johnston adds that these are places that ‘‘loom large in the daily comings and goings of
life’’ and ‘‘are accessible to the public and offer the possibility of repeated use to build up
associations and value to the community of users.’’ Often these are small local businesses or
informal community-gathering places in the neighborhood and are what Oldenburg (1981)
has termed ‘‘third places.’’ Hester suggests that these places attain a sense of ‘‘collective-
symbolic ownership’’ and are ones that people in the neighborhood hold most ‘‘sacred’’
(Hester 1984, 1993). Thus, sense of belonging is the ability for a person to belong to a group,
to be accepted in it and to feel a sense of attachment to it.
This literature review suggests that the characteristics of land use and the physical and
social environment are all important to provide a useful, safe, comfortable, pleasurable,
and meaningful setting for people to walk in urban public spaces such as Main Streets. The
present study builds on the existing empirical research and examines the associations
between the characteristics of the environment on the neighborhood Main Street and
walking behavior – not only as a physical activity, but also for the overall experience it
offers to the pedestrian. Additionally, researchers in this field have largely focused on
objectively measuring the impact of environmental characteristics and its association with
physical activity patterns. Fewer studies have subjectively measured the impact of the
environmental characteristics on human physical activity in detail. At the same time,
research suggests that subjective environmental perceptions may be as important as the
objectively measured environmental characteristics (Giles-Corti and Donovan 2003).
 Journal of Urbanism 223

Specifically, Cervero and Duncan (2003, p. 1483) suggest that quantitative studies and
statistical analyses ‘‘should be supplemented by micro-level analyses, including qualitative
case studies and quasi-experimental comparisons, that account for possible influences of
street-scale design elements.’’ Besides the objective measures based on structured
observations, this paper attempts to integrate subjective measures by using data from
interviews to determine the impact of environmental characteristics on walking behavior.

Methods
This study was conducted on Main Streets of two cities and one town in the Boston
metropolitan area in Massachusetts: Massachusetts Avenue in the Central Square
neighborhood in the City of Cambridge (population of 101,355); Harvard Street in the
Coolidge Corner neighborhood in the Town of Brookline (population of 57,107); and Elm
Street in the Davis Square neighborhood in the City of Somerville (population of 77,478)
(Figure 2). (The data source was US Census Bureau – Year 2000 data.)

Figure 2. Location plan: three study areas in the Boston metropolitan area.
224 V. Mehta

All three streets consist of mostly older building stock with only a few new buildings
constructed in the last 40 years. Almost all buildings are built to the sidewalk leaving no
setbacks. Aside from a few newer buildings with commercial space, all buildings range
from one to four stories in height. All three Main Streets have undergone major public
improvements in the last decade to make them more pedestrian friendly. These
improvements include the widening and paving of sidewalks; curbside parking; the
planting of trees; and the provision of benches, bicycle racks, trashcans, and pedestrian-
oriented street lighting. All three streets are served by the MBTA public transit system,
and the main transit stops are located on or adjacent to these Main Streets. All three
streets have a combination of small independently owned local businesses and national
chain stores. A myriad of uses, including a wide range of housing from single to multi-
family, various types and scales of retail outlets, offices, public institutional uses and some
industrial uses, can be found in and around the three neighborhoods. These include a
variety of restaurants, coffee shops, bars, fast-food restaurants, grocery stores,
convenience stores, hardware stores, pharmacies, electronics stores, cleaners, apparel
stores, barbershops, hair and beauty salons, bookshops, video rental stores, teaching
institutes, banks, offices, and apartments (Figures 3, 4 and 5). Central Square, Coolidge
Corner, and Davis Square may be classified as predominantly residential neighborhoods
with most of their daily commercial, cultural, entertainment, and other needs and
amenities catered for by the businesses and other uses on the neighborhoods’ Main Streets.
All three study areas are near university campuses: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and Harvard University near Central Square; Boston University, Massachusetts College
of Art and other smaller campuses near Coolidge Corner; and Tufts University near Davis

Figure 3. Views of the areas studied on Massachusetts Avenue in Central Square, Cambridge.
 Journal of Urbanism 225

Figure 4. Views of the areas studied on Harvard Street in Coolidge Corner, Brookline.

Square. In addition, the people of the Boston metropolitan area consider these
destinations for shopping, dining, and entertainment.

Units of study and selection of blocks

Data presented in this paper were collected at the street block level within the three study
areas. The author conducted several drive-bys and walk-bys at each of the study areas and
selected six to ten blocks in each area in which to make preliminary observations. Nineteen
blocks were selected to achieve a range in the microscale-level physical, land-use and social
characteristics discussed in the conceptual framework. This translated into selecting blocks
with a range in the physical size and type of businesses on a block; a range in the variety of
businesses on a block; a range in the presence or absence of community-place on a block; a
range in the presence or absence of street furniture on a block; and a range in the degree of
interesting and engaging storefronts, signage and displays on a block. Five blocks were on
Massachusetts Avenue at Central Square in Cambridge, six on Harvard Street at Coolidge
Corner in Brookline, and eight blocks on Elm Street at Davis Square in Somerville. An
attempt was made to select blocks within a study area where neighborhood-scale
characteristics would remain common. These neighborhood-scale characteristics included
the housing and commercial density of the area, the type of people living in the area, the
proximity to major natural features such as a water’s edge, and major uses such as a
university or a cultural institution, or a transit hub. The distance between the different
blocks and a major subway station ranged from zero to 330 m. All the blocks within a
study area were within 500 m of each other. Thus, the selected blocks in each of the three
study areas were part of the same urban context with similar neighborhood-scale
226 V. Mehta

Figure 5. Views of the areas studied on Elm Street in Davis Square, Somerville.

characteristics of the environment. This allowed for minimum variation in the macro-scale
factors among the selected blocks in a study area. Fifteen of the 19 blocks selected were
between 58 and 106 m long. The four remaining blocks were approximately 24, 30, 40, and
50 m in length.

Procedures
Pedestrian counts and walking index
The author counted all pedestrians crossing a randomly selected imaginary line in both
directions at various locations on each block for 10 or 15 minutes. On several occasions, to
add to the reliability of the data, pedestrian counts were conducted more than once within
a time slot and the results averaged. Three-hundred-and-seventy-seven observations were
made for a total of 71 hours and 33,932 pedestrians were counted in the study. Results of
the 10- or 15-minute counts were then converted to estimate hourly pedestrian volumes at
each block. Skateboarders and roller skaters were included in the count, as were people
walking pets or pushing strollers. Pedestrian counts were conducted within each of the
eight one-hour time slots on weekdays and weekends (Table 1). Hourly pedestrian volumes
at each block throughout the day on weekdays and weekends were combined and the
mean calculated to determine the Walking Index for each block.

Observation period
Data were collected on days with temperatures between 13uC and 30uC from late April to
early October 2005. While the cloud cover and wind conditions varied during the
 Journal of Urbanism 227

Table 1. Schedule of pedestrian counts for the three study areas.

Weekdays Weekends

8 a.m.–9 a.m.
9 a.m.–10 a.m. 9 a.m.–10 a.m.
10 a.m.–11 a.m.
12 p.m.–1 p.m. 12 p.m.–1 p.m.
1 p.m.–2 p.m. 1 p.m.–2 p.m.
5 p.m.–6 p.m.
6 p.m.–7 p.m. 6 p.m.–7 p.m.
7 p.m.–8 p.m.
8 p.m.–9 p.m. 8 p.m.–9 p.m.
9 p.m.–10 p.m. 9 p.m.–10 p.m.

observations, no observations were made when it was raining. Observations were carried
out between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. spread out on weekdays and weekends. Blocks were
surveyed randomly.

Reliability of observations
For the purpose of determining the reliability of the observational data, another
researcher, a city-planning student, occasionally conducted observations. The author and
the second researcher independently conducted pedestrian counts in the same setting at the
same time and compared them to check for discrepancies. There was a maximum of 2–3%
variation between the two researchers’ pedestrian counts during the busiest hours of the
day. This established sufficient inter-rater reliability.

Survey and interview

The purpose of the survey and interview was to obtain information from people who
actively used the neighborhood Main Street. Hence, a face-to-face survey and interview
was considered the best method to provide in-depth information to help understand the
users’ feelings, perceptions, and attitudes toward the street environments that were being
observed in the three study areas. In the survey the users were asked to rate their
familiarity with the block; their perceived daytime and nighttime safety on the block; their
perceived pedestrian-friendliness of the block; their perceived range of goods and services
on the block; and so on. The interview asked the same users questions such as the
following. What has changed in the area/neighborhood in the last few month or years?
Can you tell me what changes, if any, have happened in this block during that period?
How frequently do you visit this block? What brings you here? And, what do you do when
you are here? Do you use this block more often compared to other blocks on this street? If
yes, why? If not, why not? Do you have favorite stores and shops on this block? If yes,
what are they, and what makes them your favorite? Further, by posting and distributing
flyers about the research at the study areas, the author was able to target the
neighborhood residents, workers, and visitors who actually used the neighborhood
Main Street on a regular basis.

Design
Four blocks that were most representative of each study area were selected for the purpose
of the survey and interview. Hence, each participant responded to four standard
228 V. Mehta

questionnaires that included a survey and open-ended interview questions. The instrument
was designed to obtain information on why users of these neighborhood Main Streets
preferred to use certain blocks more than others.

Sampling
A flyer seeking participation in the survey and interview was designed for each study
area. These were regularly posted at stores and shops in the study areas that had space
for community notices and announcements. Each study area had five to six such
community notice boards. Flyers were given to all the businesses on the first floor and
were also distributed to people passing by in the study areas on several occasions. A
total of 51 people were surveyed and interviewed – 21 from Massachusetts Avenue at
Central Square in Cambridge, 17 from Harvard Street at Coolidge Corner in Brookline,
and 13 from Elm Street at Davis Square in Somerville. Table 2 presents the
characteristics of the study participants as compared with the sample populations of
the cities and town of the study areas. Most people were interviewed on the street or at
one of the stores in the study areas. Three people chose to be interviewed at their
residences or libraries that were not in the study area. The time for survey and interview
averaged 50 minutes, ranging from 30 to 120 minutes, with longer interviews generally
offered by long-term residents.

Results
Results of average pedestrian counts per hour on weekdays and weekends for all 19 blocks
are presented in Figure 6. Since all three streets are near major transit stops, a significant
amount of foot traffic on these blocks is generated from these transit stops. As expected,
there were more people walking by on blocks closer to major transit stops. The correlation
between the distance of the block from a major transit stop and the number of people
walking was 20.66 (p,0.01). However, transit stops were not the only factor determining
the volume of pedestrian flow. The perception of usefulness, safety, comfort, sensory
pleasure and sense of belonging contributed to the number of persons walking on a block
(Figure 7 and Table 3). These are discussed in detail below.

Usefulness of Main Street

Variety of goods and services
The results of open-ended questions in the interview show that the presence of a variety of
stores offering different goods and services on a block, particularly for day-to-day use, was
the most important factor in the users’ selection and preference for that block (Figure 7);
for example one participant commented:
I use this block several times a day. I browse at the bookstore, go to CVS [pharmacy], rent
movies, pick up dry cleaning. … I prefer it because everything is so close by and there are
many types of uses. I don’t use all but it is pleasant to see the variety. This block is more like a
neighborhood center.
The multiple uses on the block expanded its usefulness as a destination to a wide range of
people. The variety of businesses ensured that there was something of utility to many
people in the neighborhood. The comments of the users suggest how each one walked to
the block for different purposes; for example another participant commented:
I’m here six to seven times a week. Mainly [for] the bookstore. I go to CVS [pharmacy] from
time to time if I need it. I am a writer and I read there [at Booksmith bookstore] all the time.
Table 2. Characteristics of study participants.

Massachusetts Cambridge Harvard Street Brookline Elm Street Somerville Total

Avenue
Number % % Number % % Number % % Number %

Age
18–24 7 33 21 3 18 12 2 16 16 13 26
25–44 8 38 39 7 41 37 5 38 43 19 37
45–64 4 19 18 6 35 22 5 38 16 15 29
65 and over 2 10 9 1 6 12 1 8 10 4 8
Gender
Male 14 67 49 9 53 45 4 31 49 27 53
Female 7 33 51 8 47 55 9 69 51 24 47
Race
White 15 71 68 14 82 81 13 100 77 42 82
Black 1 5 12 1 6 3 0 0 7 2 4
Hispanic 1 5 7 0 0 3 0 0 9 1 2
Asian 4 19 12 2 12 13 0 0 7 6 12
Marital status
Married 9 43 29 9 53 39 6 46 32 24 47
Single 11 52 41 7 41 37 7 54 31 25 49
No response 1 5 1 6 0 0 2 4
Occupation

Journal of Urbanism
Artist/musician/writer 4 19 2 11.5 1 7.7 7 13.5
Photographer/
play director
School principal/school 1 5 2 11.5 0 0 3 6
teacher/teacher
Sociologist 0 0 0 0 1 7.7 1 2
Researcher (psychology) 1 5 1 6 0 0 2 4
Marketing/advertising/ 1 5 2 11.5 1 7.7 4 7.5
communications/
fundraising

229
Publishing/editor 1 5 1 6 1 7.7 3 6
 230
Table 2. Continued.

V. Mehta
Massachusetts Cambridge Harvard Street Brookline Elm Street Somerville Total
Avenue
Number % % Number % % Number % % Number %
Computer engineering/ 2 9.5 1 6 1 7.7 4 7.5
systems administration/programmer/software engineer
Sound engineer 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 2
Business owner 0 0 2 11.5 1 7.7 3 6
Business manager 2 9.5 0 0 0 0 2 4
Administrator 1 5 1 6 0 0 2 4
Disaster 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 2
management planner
Attorney 0 0 0 0 1 7.7 1 2
Architect 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 2
Web designer 0 0 0 0 1 7.7 1 2
Employee in 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 2
hardware
Store/picture-framing
store
Realtor 0 0 0 0 1 7.7 1 2
Employee with 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 2
non-profit
Nurse 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 2
Police officer 0 0 0 0 1 7.7 1 2
Student 2 9.5 1 6 1 7.7 4 7.5
Retiree 1 5 1 6 1 7.7 3 6
Looking for a job 0 0 0 0 1 7.7 1 2
No response 2 9.5 0 0 0 0 2 4
Total 21 100 17 100 13 100 51 100

Data for Cambridge, Brookline and Somerville are from US Census Bureau, Year 2000
 Journal of Urbanism 231

Figure 6. Daily average pedestrian counts per hour on weekdays and weekends on 19 blocks. Data
are from blocks in the neighborhood of Main Streets in Cambridge, Brookline, and Somerville in
Massachusetts.

Figure 7. Why users preferred to use some blocks more than others on the same street. Response to
an open-ended question. Data are from 51 interviews with each participant responding to a standard
questionnaire for four blocks.

It’s a big draw for me. They have places you can sit. It’s open till 11:00 P.M. I like the large
periodicals section they have. It is the oldest business here.
Even when they did not use all the businesses regularly, people were happy to have the
variety. Moreover, in some cases where a resident used the block for multiple purposes,
walking on that block became a matter of habit, as noted by this resident:
I’m here at least once a week. I hang out at 1369 [Coffeehouse]. I’ll get lunch at the Mexican
place. Sometimes I come to read the paper here, get videos once in a while, [and] go to the
hardware store sometimes. Sometimes I just like to walk on this side of the street when I’m
going somewhere.
232 V. Mehta

Table 3. Brief statements explaining the ten items shown in Figure 7.

Statements by interview participants

Variety of uses and stores I rent videos here, get coffee at 1369, eat at the Ethiopian restaurant.
I come here to relax, think, to read, get coffee. Once in a while I play
Keno.
I like the density and diversity of businesses.
It is one of the ones I use more. I go to Booksmith, to Peets for coffee,
sometimes to the drycleaner.
It’s a block with variety of things to do.
All my daily needs are available here.
Meeting place, see activities I can look at people going by.
and people I like to run into people I know.
It’s great for people-watching.
If I meet friends at Central Square, I meet friends at 1369.
There’s more foot traffic here. I see more people I know on that side of
the street.
Character and ambience This one is more of a ‘‘sit down’’ place. There is more seating, it’s
quieter. There are trees.
It has character like much of Central Square but at the same time it’s
more relaxing. People are sitting around and hanging out, not just
going somewhere.
Seems like the right level of noise for me on that block.
It’s more like a neighborhood center.
Pedestrian friendly People in outdoor seating give the appearance of ‘‘friendliness.’’
There are places to sit.
I can sit outside without patronizing any business.
Benches seem appealing and friendly.
I go to Diesel a lot. Like to go for a walk. It’s very
pedestrian-friendly.
Visually interesting There’s a variety of shops and displays to see.
This block is visually diverse.
The florist adds some visual interest.
I prefer to walk on that side. Flowers etcetera, seating and tables at
Zathmary’s make it more interesting.
Stores with good services I come to use the stores. The hardware store is reasonable. The staff are
and goods helpful and knowledgeable and I am welcome.
People at 1369 are friendly.
The video store has cool stuff compared to Blockbuster.
I buy food at Zathmary’s. Can’t beat quality and friendliness.
I love the manager there. Very welcoming.
Place attachment and Everyday I have coffee here. It is very relaxing for me. My friends know
destination where to find me.
Zathmary’s is a place to go. It is a destination.
I meet friends for coffee here.
It has the best bookstore around.
Booksmith is my favorite store.
Proximity and access I use it the most. It is closest to the ‘‘T.’’
I’m at the tobacco store for newspaper every Saturday and Zathmary’s
daily on my way home.
It’s very convenient. It’s on my way to church.
Yeah, it’s really close to work. I work right across the street.
It’s within walking distance from where I live.
Independent stores Yes, because of variety and uniqueness.
I like the uniqueness of restaurants.
In principle I like to support small businesses.
The old school diner is unique. You don’t see such places from where I
am.
I prefer to spend my money at the independent coffee shop than
Dunkin’ Donuts.
Feels very safe There are no homeless on this block.
I can go there anytime, even late in the evening and not worry.
 Journal of Urbanism 233

In contrast, some other blocks on the same Main Street were of little interest to the same
user:
I don’t come here as much. This block doesn’t have a place to come and spend time. There’s
no place to sit around.
The preference for blocks with a variety of goods and services was supported by the user
survey (Figure 8). The author’s unstructured observations tracking some individuals
further reinforced the conclusion that users of the neighborhood Main Streets combined
chores and visited multiple stores during one visit.

Quality of goods and services

Users commented that they patronized the businesses on the Main Streets not only for
their proximity but also for the quality of goods and services they received at these
businesses, as suggested by these remarks (also Figure 7):
Zathmary’s is one of my favorite. I pick up bread and salad for the evening meal quite often.
Can’t beat quality and ease and friendliness.

Peet’s serves superior coffee over Starbucks. It is a place to hang out and chat.
These comments also suggest that the usefulness of the Main Streets, due to its quality of
goods and services and wide range and variety of businesses to support people’s day-to-
day needs for shopping, eating, entertainment, and so on, led to an increased frequency of
use that resulted in place-attachment to one or more businesses, the block, or to the street
as a whole. Such an environment–behavior dynamic, where people become familiar with
other people and places as a result of their routine, is what Seamon (1980) has called a
‘‘place-ballet.’’ Users noted that the blocks on the Main Streets that possess such a
dynamic began to achieve a certain recognizable sense of place, as suggested by these
comments:
I’m here once every day on average. I shop here; buy books, rent videos, [get a] haircut, buy
coffee, meet people, hang out, people-watch, walk to the ‘T’ stop. I prefer it for the coffee, [and
the] benches. It has a more comfortable feel. The stores here meet certain needs. They are
locally owned. … I’d rather spend my dollars here.

Figure 8. Relationship between users’ perceived variety of goods and services available on the block
and walking index. User response to a survey of four blocks each at the three study areas (Pearson’s
correlation r50.633, p(0.027).
234 V. Mehta

There are more businesses here that interest me. I return here, often to the café. I like the
atmosphere and the food. The garage doors open to the street. I like the music, the food, [and
the] pool table. They have wireless Internet. And I meet people there. Really interesting
people.

Safety on Main Street

From the observations of three neighborhood Main Streets, it was evident that while many
more people used some blocks more than others, all the blocks studied at the three study
areas were perceived to be generally safe. None of the properties was vacant. While the
level of tidiness on the street varied from store to store, none of the buildings or sidewalks
was in a state of disrepair. Even the frequency of street lighting fixtures and the
illumination levels after dark were similar within the blocks in all three study areas. There
were no significant signs of anti-social activity or unruly behavior recorded by the author
at any of these three locations. Panhandlers and homeless people were seen in some places,
but that did not seem to cause a conflict with the use of the street by other people.
Similarly, people did not suggest that vehicular traffic affected their perception of
safety. It is most likely that the pedestrian-friendly physical improvements and traffic
calming measures at the streets influenced this perception. Since all the blocks were
perceived to be generally safe, the relationship between walking and daytime and
nighttime safety was not significant (Figure 9). Responses from surveys and interviews
reinforced these observations. Sense of safety was the least important factor indicated in
determining whether to use a particular block on the street (Figure 7).
Since the buildings and sidewalks on all blocks were generally perceived to be similar
in physical condition and state of maintenance, the perception of safety was not affected
by physical condition either (Figure 10). However, many users commented that ‘‘nothing
seemed to happen there,’’ and that those blocks were less interesting in appearance and
less attractive, and had few or no stores that offered unique goods and services. While the
users of these three streets had a general impression of safety, these subtle differences in
perception of safety were results of the appearance of each business – the way it looked
and felt – as noted by this woman:

Figure 9. Relationship between users’ perception of daytime and nighttime safety on the block and
walking index. User response to a survey of four blocks each at the three study areas: daytime safety
and walking, correlation not significant; and nighttime safety and walking, correlation not
significant.
 Journal of Urbanism 235

Figure 10. Relationship between users’ perception of building and sidewalk condition of the block
and walking index. User response to a survey of four blocks each at the three study areas: building
condition and walking, correlation not significant; and sidewalk condition and walking, correlation
not significant.
I haven’t been to The Burren but I feel it is a good place because of the way it presents itself on
the outdoors. If it weren’t for The Burren pub there would be almost no sidewalk life there.

Comfort on Main Street: environmental and physical

As expected, people’s preference for spaces in the sun or under shade on the street changed
with changing seasons and weather. Most people were observed walking in the sun during
spring. However, during summer a combination of shade and filtered sunlight through tree
cover, canopies, awnings, and overhangs was most sought after. Since this study primarily
addressed pedestrian behavior on the street, it was important to determine whether the
users perceived the street as a pedestrian-friendly environment or not. In the user survey, a
pedestrian-friendly street environment was broadly defined as a place that was good for
walking, sitting, and other pedestrian-oriented activities. Hence, the level of pedestrian-
friendliness of each block on the street was an important factor in determining the level of
physical comfort it provided to its users.
Results of user surveys reported in Figure 11 do not show a very strong correlation
between perceived pedestrian-friendliness of the block and the Walking Index. This does
not imply that pedestrian-friendliness of the block was not important to users. Rather one
must recall the description of the three Main Streets. All three Main Streets have been
upgraded in the last decade or so; sidewalks have been widened with curb extensions at
block corners; trees have been planted; and benches and other street furniture such as
bicycle racks and trashcans have been provided to create a pedestrian-friendly
environment. Hence, the range in the pedestrian-friendliness of the blocks within the
three Main Streets is not very wide. The not-so-strong correlation suggests that the while
the general level of pedestrian-friendly features described above was high on most blocks,
people chose to walk on some blocks more than others due to other features such as the
usefulness of the businesses, the sensory stimuli, or presence of places of social gathering.

Sensory pleasure on the Main Street

Six measures were used in the survey to capture the degree of pleasure or displeasure
that users derived through the sensory experience of the street: attractiveness,
236 V. Mehta

Figure 11. Relationship between users’ perceived pedestrian friendliness of the block and walking
index. User response to a survey of four blocks each at the three study areas (Pearson’s correlation
r50.51, p(0.09).

interesting appearance, change of signs and displays, occurrence of events, uniqueness

of goods and services, and presence of people and activities. Equally important were
the responses from users to open-ended questions (presented in Figure 7), suggesting
that sensory pleasure was an important environmental characteristic in relation to
walking.

Attractiveness and interesting appearance

Attractiveness and interesting appearance were measured on a visual rating scale, and
related to stimuli from fixed, semi-fixed, and movable elements such as the articulation of
the building façade; the openings at street level; lighting fixtures; furniture on the sidewalk;
signs, plantings, and displays; and the variety in these elements. Hence, attractiveness and
interesting appearance were set up as measures in an attempt to capture the sensory
pleasure that the street environment as a setting was able to offer to its users. The results of
the survey indicate that the blocks that seemed more attractive and interesting in
appearance to their users were also the ones they walked on the most (Figure 12).
Comments from the users of Main Streets corroborate this finding, as suggested by these
two study participants:
I prefer to walk on the JP Licks side of the street. There are a variety of shops and displays to
see. There’s flowers, and seating at Zathmary’s. It is more interesting. There is much more foot
traffic on that side. I see more people I know on that side of the street.

I feel there are more people walking on this side [of the street]. I usually walk on this side of the
street after Prospect [Street]. I almost never walk on the sidewalk opposite. Maybe this [side] is
interesting because of stores or more people.
The lack of sensory interest was a factor discouraging walking on some of the blocks, as
suggested by these two users:
I have no business there. There’s nothing visually interesting to look at compared to other
[blocks] where people are seated, [and] there’s more atmosphere.

I use this block, sort of, less. I usually walk on the opposite side [of the street] which is more
interesting.
 Journal of Urbanism 237

Figure 12. Relationship between users’ perception of attractiveness and interesting appearance of
the block and walking index. User response to a survey of four blocks each at the three study areas:
attractiveness and walking, Pearson’s correlation r50.70, p(0.011; and interesting appearance and
walking, Pearson’s correlation r50.60, p(0.039).

Change of signs and displays

Change of signs and displays in show-windows and entrances of stores attempted to
capture the sensory pleasure that the street environment was able to offer to its users over
time as a result of change. The blocks that people perceived as having more changes in
signs and displays were used more for walking (Figure 13). Additionally, observations
showed that window-shopping (used in a broad sense of looking at signs, displays, and so
on) was a significant activity on the street, second only to eating and/or drinking. Users
were cognizant of the need for such changeable elements, as suggested by this longtime
resident of one of the neighborhoods:
A flower or plant store would be nice. Those products give a feeling of life, beauty, and things
alive. It’s a sense of nurture. It’s a good way to express happiness and love.

Figure 13. Relationship between users’ perception of change in signs and displays on the block and
walking index. User response to a survey of four blocks each at three study areas (Pearson’s
correlation r50.626, p(0.029).
238 V. Mehta

Occurrence of events
Occurrence of events included outdoor sales, neighborhood campaigns, festivals, block
parties, street musicians, and so on. Results of the survey of all study areas indicated that
users generally perceived a low level of occurrence of events on the street. However, blocks
that people perceived to have more events were used more for walking (Figure 14).

Uniqueness of goods and services

Results of the survey show that the uniqueness of goods and services on a block was an
important factor in the users’ preference for that block (Figure 15). Of the stores
mentioned by people, all except one offered goods and services for day-to-day use. Users
preferred stores that provided goods and services for day-to-day use in a manner and
ambience that was unique. Many people walked to a specific block not only for the variety
of goods and services but also for the uniqueness of these goods and services; for example
one neighborhood resident commented:
Yes [I prefer this block to other blocks] because of the variety and its uniqueness. There’s a
great sports bar, great ice cream place, a great niche supermarket, a nice florist.

Presence of people and activities

Presence of people and activities particularly added to the sensory pleasure on the street.
Even when they did not intend to spend time in stationary activity, some people preferred
to walk along the blocks with more people and lingering activities, suggesting that the
lively character of the block itself was the attraction. One woman, for example, noted her
preference for blocks with more people:
I go down this side more often. I walk on this side [of the street]. There are more people there.
That makes me prefer to use that side.
In many cases, people commented that a combination of presence of people and other
fixed, semi-fixed and movable elements created visual interest and affected their preference
for walking on a particular block, as suggested by these two participants in the study:

Figure 14. Relationship between users’ perception of occurrence of events on the block and walking
index. User response to a survey of four blocks each at three study areas (Pearson’s correlation
r50.84, p(0.0006).
 Journal of Urbanism 239

Figure 15. Relationship between users’ perception of uniqueness of goods and services available on
the block and walking index. User response to a survey of four blocks each at three study areas
(Pearson’s correlation r50.65, p(0.022).

I prefer to walk on this side [of the street]. It has much more interesting visual things. I look
into the [shop] windows, people-watch. There are more people here.

Yes, I prefer to walk on this block. It has character like much of Central Square. But at the
same time it is more relaxing. There are places to sit. You can look at people as you go by.
People are sitting around and hanging out [and] not just going somewhere. It is not sterile like
the next block.
While sensory pleasure is a subjective quality, the results of surveys and the responses to
the interview questions indicate that people were generally able to agree that some blocks
were more pleasurable to walk on than others. This was an important factor in their
selection and use of these blocks.

Sense of belonging on Main Street

Opportunities to commune actively and passively with other people were important
criteria in people’s decision to use a block (Figure 7). Participants noted many businesses
as their favorite community-gathering places. They valued these places as destinations to
meet neighbors, friends, and sometimes strangers. Over time, these places had become
neighborhood landmarks for the community that attracted them to walk to the Main
Street. People designated a variety of businesses as community places including coffee
shops, convenience stores, restaurants, bookshops, bars, and even a used goods store. A
majority of people who participated in the study had some place they could identify with
as a community place. These places reinforced their sense of belonging and sense of
community in the neighborhood. People valued the community places as more that mere
businesses. The ability of a business to provide more than goods and services translated
into the possibility of more trips to the Main Street, as suggested by this participant:
I like the fact that people can hang around here and socialize and not just be a customer. It is a
meeting area, a destination. Everybody comes here. It attracts [people from] all walks of life,
all races, working class, families, … it has its own unique aura about it.
In some cases, the community-gathering places were so significant for people that they
were part of their lives even when they no longer lived in the neighborhood, as noted by
this previous resident of the neighborhood:
240 V. Mehta

People have changed due to the rents. It used to be neighborhood people earlier [at the
coffeehouse]. It has changed from neighborhood people to a destination with more new
people. But people who lived here [in the neighborhood] still come back to this block. I used to
live here. … Now I live in Davis Square. … I still come back here. 1369 [Coffeehouse] is a
community-gathering point. I feel at home. … It has an ambience of community.

Discussion
The findings reveal a hierarchy of needs at the microscale that support walking behavior.
The survey and interview responses show that people perceived differences in physical,
land-use, and social characteristics across blocks on the same Main Street, and this
affected their walking behavior. Even on the same Main Street people had different
perceptions of the environment at different blocks. Responses to the open-ended questions
revealed that people preferred blocks that had a variety in the mix of uses and stores,
particularly those that served daily needs; blocks that had gathering places where they
could meet their friends and also be able to see other people and activities; blocks that had
a distinctive character and ambience; blocks that were pedestrian-friendly and visually
interesting; blocks that had stores and businesses with good service; and blocks that had
stores that were perceived as destinations. The findings of this study suggest that all five
aspects – usefulness, safety, comfort, pleasurability, and sense of belonging – emerged as
important criteria for the users of Main Streets. However, people suggested that
usefulness, sense of belonging and pleasurability (in that order) were most important to
them in the hierarchy of walking needs. The lack of emphasis on safety and comfort must
be understood in the context of these Main Streets which are considered safe places in the
neighborhoods and have recently undergone physical upgrades to make a comfortable
pedestrian-friendly environment. These findings corroborate the importance of safety,
sensory pleasure, and physical and environmental comfort at the microscale; they also
provide new information on the social aspects of the environment, and add to our
understanding of the factors influencing walking.
As Brown et al. (2007) suggest, the results of such detailed studies of the microscale
walking environment may be contrasted with results of the macro-scale studies. In the
present study, the preference for walking changed across a city block; this finding would
have been lost in a macro-scale correlation study using course data available from
geographic information system (GIS) or Census. A macro-scale study of any of these areas
would not have captured the finer aspects that are extremely significant in influencing
walking. The use of detailed interviews with people who are familiar with the
neighborhood provided relevant and rich data on social aspects of the environment that
have received little attention in research on walking in the fields of public health, medicine
and planning.
The decision to exercise any behavior depends on multiple factors. The cultural
acceptance of that behavior is essential for it to occur as a common activity (Rapoport
1990). Assuming that walking on the Main Street is a culturally acceptable activity in the
areas studied for this paper, then individual and environmental factors do play an
important role in supporting or discouraging walking. Certainly walking behavior took
place on the blocks that offered limited usefulness, comfort, sources of sensory pleasure
and places to commune. But there people most likely walked as a necessary activity – going
to work or another destination – and not as an optional or social activity (Gehl 1987). This
assumption is consistent with Alfonzo’s model, and it may be suggested further that
usefulness and the sense of belonging are an important part of the hierarchy of walking
needs. While usefulness fits in the model as the third level of needs, more research will be
required to determine where the sense of belonging falls in the model (Figure 16). That is,
 Journal of Urbanism 241

Figure 16. Hierarchy of walking needs on the neighborhood Main Street. Source: adapted from
Alfonzo (2005).

do people walk to the neighborhood Main Street to reach a place to commune even if the
walking environment is not very comfortable or pleasing to their senses? Alternatively, is
sense of belonging the highest level of need desired only after the other needs are fulfilled?
Much more qualitative research is needed to determine this.
However, Appleyard (1976) provides some insight into this discussion. He suggested
that there are three common modes of perception: responsive, operational, and inferential
(Appleyard 1976, pp. 205–206). In his study in Venezuela he found that people focus on
different aspects and qualities of the environment in each of these modes. In the responsive
mode, the sensory experience is paramount and people perceive the environment in terms
of colors, textures, sounds, smells, and so on. In the operational mode, people perceive the
environment in terms of a place to support their actions and are particularly interested in
those aspects of the environment that will help facilitate these actions. In the inferential
mode, the environment is perceived as a carrier of meanings and people pay special
attention to elements of the environment that act as symbols for communication. People
seldom operate in one single mode and are constantly switching between modes. However,
at any given time one of the modes of perception remains predominant (Brower 1988,
p. 7). In the case of walking, it may be suggested that once the basic needs of feasibility and
accessibility are met, the mode of perception will determine the hierarchy of the remaining
higher-level needs. Hence, in the responsive mode the sensory pleasure will be the next
important aspect after safety, possibly even beyond usefulness, comfort and sense of
belonging. In the operational mode, usefulness will be considered important, most likely
beyond comfort, sensory pleasure, and sense of belonging. Finally, in the inferential mode,
it is likely that the sense of belonging will rank higher than the other needs once needs of
feasibility, accessibility and safety are met.

Limitations
This study was conducted in established urban areas where a large part of the development
pattern is historic with high levels of accessibility supporting walking as an everyday
activity. Hence, the lessons from this study are most likely applicable to similar urban
contexts: either existing ones or new neighborhoods being planned with similar
development patterns. Since all three streets were perceived to be generally safe and
242 V. Mehta

comfortable, this study was unable to determine if the other aspects of the environment
would still remain important to users if safety and comfort needs were not met. The study
sample was limited to only 19 blocks on three Main Streets for observation data, and users
were interviewed for only twelve of these. More rigorous statistical analyses could not be
conducted with this limited sample. Additionally, the sample of 51 interview participants
was small, and more research through direct sampling and qualitative analysis is required
to corroborate or expand both the substantive findings of this research as well as the
conceptual framework suggested for walking needs. Although the study participants were
evenly divided by gender (53% male, 47% female) the majority of participants were
Caucasian. Children, and adolescents were not represented, and the percentage of study
participants over 65 years was small (Table 2). Hence, it is likely that children, adolescents
and the elderly, or a different racial mix of population, may or may not be as inclined to
walk, or their motivations for walking may be different. Additionally, the study did not
distinguish between walking predominantly to reach one’s destination or for pleasure or
exercise. Finally, more studies that use mixed methods are needed to triangulate and
expand our understanding of environmental characteristics affecting walking behavior.

Conclusions and implications for policy and design

Literature in planning and public health suggests that by creating walkable environments
places will be created that are compact, efficient, healthy, and good for social contact.
Public health officials promote walking to achieve the daily prescribed need for physical
activity; planners and environmental psychologists suggest that pedestrian-friendly
environments support a sense of community; environmentalists encourage walking as an
alternate to driving to reduce fuel consumption; and walking is also promoted as an
equitable means of transport for people of different ages and class. As a result, many cities
around the world are paying special attention to walking and are writing and
implementing policy to promote new pedestrian environments or to improve exiting
ones. The lessons from this study are particularly important for Main Streets or other
commercial streets in neighborhoods. Currently, there is considerable interest in
revitalizing Main Streets; but at a time when there is increasing competition from
outlying malls and big-box retailers, it takes more than proximity to attract people to walk
to the local Main Street. The biggest competitive advantage of Main Streets, due to their
location in or near residential neighborhoods, is their ability to make it possible for local
people to see and meet one another as a part of their daily routine. Main Streets will be
more walkable if they are planned and designed to have businesses that are useful to the
people who use these streets; if they are managed to support community-gathering places;
and if they integrate places of social meaning. Policy-makers, designers and managers of
public spaces not only need to provide physical improvements such as path connectivity,
wide sidewalks, trees, and other microscale physical features that make pedestrian-friendly
environments; but also, more importantly, need to attract and encourage a variety of
businesses, and recognize, support and preserve any community-gathering places that act
as destinations and provide a sense of belonging for users of the Main Streets. Therefore,
as also suggested by Brown et al. (2007):
[I]t is important to focus on the range of social and environmental qualities that support
walking. The key to walking in urban areas may be the ability to achieve multiple goals, such
as running errands, enjoying scenery and social milieu, avoiding the hassle and cost of driving,
and enjoying the health benefits of walking. (p. 55)
These findings imply an important role for public authorities and private business
owners in making neighborhood Main Streets more walkable. This study recommends
 Journal of Urbanism 243

that active living researchers further consider environmental aspects emerging from
subjective measures and not ignore individual perceptions. For policy-makers, designers
and managers of public spaces, the recommendation of this study is to consider
simultaneously the physical, land-use and social aspects of the built environment to
support walking. The subjective perceptions of individuals presented in this paper will add
to the knowledge of the relationship between the built environment and walking behavior.
Finally, by building on the existing models of walking needs this paper provides a more
complete range of needs that should be considered to create a desirable environment to
walk, especially as it relates to walking in urban neighborhoods. The findings expand our
understanding of the hierarchy of walking needs by suggesting usefulness and sense of
belonging as additional and distinct needs for walking.

Acknowledgements
Part of this research was supported by a Grant from the Active Living Research Program of the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The author would like to thank Sidney Brower, Reid Ewing,
Guido Francescato, Shenglin Chang and Mary Corbin Sies for their guidance with the research.
Thanks also to the anonymous referees and the editor of this journal for their useful comments on an
earlier draft of this paper. Furthermore, the author is grateful to all the people who participated in
the interviews.

References
Alfonzo, M., 2005. To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environment and
Behavior, 37, 808–836.
Appleyard, D., 1976. Planning a pluralist city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Appleyard, D., 1981. Livable streets. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bacon, E., 1967. Design of cities. New York, NY: Viking.
Ball, K. et al., 2001. Perceived environmental aesthetics and convenience and company are
associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults. Preventive Medicine, 33,
434–440.
Barker, R., 1968. Ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bell, P. et al., 1990. Environmental psychology. 3rd ed. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bosselmann, P., 1998. Representation of places. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bosselmann, P. et al., 1984. Sun, wind and comfort: a study of open spaces and sidewalks in four
downtown areas. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, College of
Environmental Design, University of California.
Brower, S., 1988. Design in familiar places: what makes home environments look good. New York,
NY: Praeger.
Brown, B. et al., 2007. Walkable route perceptions and physical features: converging evidence for en
route walking experience. Environment and Behavior, 39, 43–61.
Brownson, R.C. et al., 2001. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the
United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1995–2003.
Cervero, R. and Duncan, M., 2003. Walking, bicycling and urban landscape: evidence from the San
Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1478–1483.
Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K., 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design.
Transportation Research D, 2, 199–219.
Clarke, A. and Dornfeld, M.J., 1994. Traffic calming, auto-restricted zones and other traffic
management techniques: their effects on bicycling and pedestrians. Case Study No. 19, National
Bicycling and Walking Study, Publication No. FHWA-PD-93-028. Washington, DC: U.S.
Federal Highway Administration.
Craig, C. et al., 2002. Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: a study examining
walking to work. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23 (Suppl. 2), 36–43.
244 V. Mehta

Croney, J., 1971. Anthropometrics for designers. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
Cullen, G., 1961. The concise townscape. New York, NY: Reinhold.
Day, K. et al., 2006. The Irvine-Minnesota inventory to measure built environments. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 144–152.
Frank, L. et al., 2007. Urban form relationships with walk trip frequency and distance among youth.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 21, 305–311.
Friedman, B., Gordon, S. and Peers, J., 1994. Effect of neotraditional neighborhood design on travel
characteristics. Transportation Research Board, 1466, 63–70.
Gehl, J., 1987. Life between buildings. New York, NY: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.
Giles-Corti, B. and Donovan, R.J., 2003. Relative influences of individual, social environmental, and
physical environmental correlates of walking. American Journal of Public Health, 93,
1583–1589.
Handy, S., Cao, X.Y. and Mokhtarian, P.L., 2006. Self-selection in the relationship between the
built environment and walking – empirical evidence from northern California. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 72, 55–74.
Handy, S. and Clifton, K.J., 2001. Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel.
Transportation, 28, 317–346.
Handy, S., Clifton, K.J. and Fisher, J., 1998. The effectiveness of land use policies as a strategy for
reducing automobile dependence: a study of Austin neighborhoods. Austin, TX: Center for
Transportation Research, Southwest Region University Transportation Center.
Hass-Klau, C. et al., 1999. Streets as living space: helping public spaces play their proper role. London:
ETP/Landor.
Hester, R., 1984. Planning neighborhood space with people. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand-
Reinhold.
Hester, R., 1993. Sacred structures and everyday life: a return to Manteo, North Carolina. In: D.
Seamon, ed. Dwelling seeing and designing: toward a phenomenological ecology. New York,
NY: State University of New York Press, 217–298.
Hope, T. and Hough, M., 1988. Area, crime and incivility: a profile from the British Crime Survey.
In: T. Hope and M. Shaw, eds. Communities and crime reduction. London: HMSO, 30–47.
Humpel, N., Neville, O.N. and Leslie, E., 2002. Environmental factors associated with adults’
participation in physical activity: a review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22,
188–199.
Isaacs, R., 2000. The urban picturesque: an aesthetic experience of urban pedestrian places. Journal
of Urban Design, 5, 145–180.
Jacobs, A., 1993. Great streets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jacobs, J., 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Vintage.
Johnston, C., 2005. ‘‘What is social value?’’ [online]. Teaching Heritage. Available from: http://
www.teachingheritage.nsw.edu.au/1views/w1v_johnston.html [Accessed 28 October 2006].
Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S., 1989. The experience of nature – a psychological perspective. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Krizek, K.J. and Johnson, P.J., 2006. Proximity to trails and retail: effects on urban cycling and
walking. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72, 33–42.
Lang, J., 1987. Creating architectural theory: the role of the behavioral sciences in environmental
design. New York, NY: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.
Lofland, L., 1998. The public realm: exploring the city’s quintessential social territory. New York,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Lynch, K., 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lynch, K., 1980. A walk around the block. In: T. Banerjee and M. Southworth, eds. City sense and
city design: writings and projects of Kevin Lynch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 185–204.
Maslow, A., 1943. Theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
Maslow, A., 1954. Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Montgomery, J., 1998. Making a city urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3,
93–116.
Nasar, J., 1998. The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Journal of Urbanism 245

Newman, O., 1972. Defensible space: crime prevention through urban design. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Oldenburg, R., 1981. The great good place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Perkins, D., 1986. The crime-related physical and social environmental correlates of citizen
participation in block associations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA.
Perkins, D., Meek, J. and Taylor, R., 1992. The physical environment of street blocks and residents’
perception of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and measurement. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 12, 21–34.
Perkins, D. et al., 1993. The physical environment of street crime: defensible space, territoriality and
incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 29–49.
Porteous, J., 1996. Environmental aesthetics: ideas, politics and planning. London: Routledge.
Rapoport, A., 1969. House form and culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rapoport, A., 1977. Human aspects of urban form. Oxford: Pergamon.
Rapoport, A., 1990. History and precedent in environmental design. New York, NY: Plenum.
Ross, C.E., 2000. Walking, exercising, and smoking: does neighborhood matter? Social Science and
Medicine, 51, 265–274.
Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F. and Frank, L.D., 2003. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling:
Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral
Medicine, 25, 80–91.
Saelens, B.E. et al., 2003. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity an environment scale
evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1552–1558.
Seamon, D., 1980. Body-subject, time–space routines, and place-ballets. In: A. Buttimer and D.
Seamon, eds. The human experience of space and place. New York, NY: St. Martin’s, 148–165.
Skogan, W. and Maxfield, M., 1981. Coping with crime: individual and neighborhood reactions.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Southworth, M., 2005. Designing the walkable city. Journal of Urban Planning and Development,
131, 246–257.
Steele, F., 1973. Physical settings and organizational development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Taylor, R., Gottfredson, S. and Brower, S., 1984. Block crime and fear – defensible space, local
social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21,
303–331.
Transportation Research Board, 2005. Does the built environment influence physical activity?:
examining the evidence. Special Report No. 282. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board.
Zacharias, J., 2001a. Path choice and visual stimuli: signs of human activity and architecture. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 21, 341–352.
Zacharias, J., 2001b. Pedestrian behavior and perception in urban walking environments. Journal of
Planning Literature, 16, 3–18.