The Walkability of Thessaloniki: Citizens’ Perceptions

  • Roxani Gkavra
  • Dimitrios NalmpantisEmail author
  • Evangelos Genitsaris
  • Aristotelis Naniopoulos
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 879)


This paper aims to assess the walkability of Thessaloniki, Greece, via individuals’ perceptions about the influence of the environmental factors of functionality, safety, aesthetic, and points of interest on their pedestrian behavior. The survey’s participants were 117 men and 152 women, from 15 to 78 years old, who came from 12 municipalities of the greater Thessaloniki area. The participants responded to a questionnaire which was based on valid and reliable previous respective questionnaires and walkability audits. The questionnaire was formulated on an online Internet platform and the data were collected in October 2017. The results revealed a variability of the assessment results among the different municipalities of Thessaloniki. Since the data were analyzed on the detailed level of postal codes, many differences were also found even between different postal code areas. Almost all areas were found to be insufficient in terms of functional characteristics. The suburban areas suffer from lack of pedestrians’ facilities, while urban areas from many obstacles on the existing facilities. In contrast, the proximity of points of interest was found to be very satisfactory. Regarding the safety of the pedestrians’ environment, it was perceived as of medium level whereas it was higher in the Thessaloniki city center. The pedestrians reported dysphoria from air pollution, mostly in neighborhoods with high density and vehicle traffic. Dirty pavements, lack of greenery, and ugly buildings bother citizens while walking. The findings are discussed with respect to practical implications in urban planning and people’s quality of life.


Walkability Thessaloniki Perception Questionnaire Audit 


  1. 1.
    Rastogi, R.: Promotion of non-motorized modes as a sustainable transportation option: policy and planning issues. Curr. Sci. 100(9), 1340–1348 (2011). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krambeck, H.V.: The global walkability index. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2006).
  3. 3.
    Gallin, N.: Quantifying pedestrian friendliness – guidelines for assessing pedestrian level of service. Road Transp. Res. 10(1), 47–55 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sisiopiku, V.P., Byrd, J., Chittoor, A.: Application of Level-of-Service methods for evaluation of operations at pedestrian facilities. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2002, 117–124 (2007). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lo, R.H.: Walkability: what is it? J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2(2), 145–166 (2009). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winters, Μ., Buehler, R., Götschi, T.: Policies to promote active travel: evidence from reviews of the literature. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 4(3), 278–285 (2017). Scholar
  8. 8.
    NZ Transport Agency: Pedestrian planning and design guide. Land Transport New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aghaabbasi, M., Moeinaddini, M., Zaly Shah, M., Asadi-Shekari, Z.: A new assessment model to evaluate the microscale sidewalk design factors at the neighborhood level. J. Transp. Health 5, 97–112 (2017). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burden, D.: Street design guidelines for healthy neighborhoods. Transp. Res. E-Circ. E-C019(B-1), 1–15 (2000).
  11. 11.
    Galanis, A., Eliou, N.: Development and implementation of an audit tool for the pedestrian built environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 48, 3143–3152 (2012). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mehta, V.: Walkable streets: pedestrian behavior, perceptions and attitudes. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 1(3), 217–245 (2008). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moudon, A., Hess, P., Snyder, M., Stanilov, K.: Effects of site design and pedestrian travel in mixed-use, medium-density environments. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1578, 48–55 (1997). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., Donovan, R.: Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc. Sci. Med. 56(8), 1693–1703 (2003). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., Kraft, M.K.: Active transportation and physical activity: opportunities for collaboration on transportation and public health research. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 38(4), 249–268 (2004). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mateo-Babiano, Ι.: Pedestrian’s needs matter: examining Manila’s walking environment. Transp. Policy 45, 107–115 (2016). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moudon, A., Lee, C.: Walking and bicycling: an evaluation of environmental audit instruments. Am. J. Health Promot. 18(1), 21–37 (2003). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jensen, W.A., Brown, B.B., Smith, K.R., Brewer, S.C., Amburgey, J.W., McIff, B.: Active transportation on a complete street: perceived and audited walkability correlates. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14(9), 1014:1–1014:19 (2017). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brownson, R.C., Hoehner, C.M., Day, K., Forsyth, A., Sallis, J.F.: Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am. J. Prev. Med. 36(4), S99.e12–S123.e12 (2009). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Black, J.B., Chen, D.: Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am. J. Public Health 93(9), 1552–1558 (2003). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cerin, E., Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D.: Neighborhood environment walkability scale: validity and development of a short form. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 38(9), 1682–1691 (2006). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spittaels, H., Foster, C., Oppert, J.-M., Rutter, H., Oja, P., Sjöström, M., De Bourdeaudhuijr, I.: Assessment of environmental correlates of physical activity: development of a European questionnaire. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 6(39), 1–11 (2009). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, C., Moudon, A.V.: The 3Ds + R: Quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 11(3), 204–215 (2006). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oliver, L.N., Schuurman, Ν., Hall, Α.W.: Comparing circular and network buffers to examine the influence of land use on walking for leisure and errands. Int. J. Health Geogr. 6(41), 1–11 (2007). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pikora, T.J., Bull, L.F.C., Jamrozik, K., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R.J.: Developing a reliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 23(3), 187–194 (2002). Scholar
  26. 26.
    San Francisco Department of Public Health: The Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI): an assessment of the physical condition of streets and intersection. San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, CA (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Millington, C., Ward Thompson, C., Rowe, D., Aspinall, P., Fitzsimons, C., Nelson, N., Mutrie, N.: Development of the Scottish Walkability Assessment Tool (SWAT). Health Place 15(2), 474–481 (2009). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations