Assessing the Pedestrian Network Conditions in Two Cities: The Cases of Qazvin and Porto

  • Mona JabbariEmail author
  • Fernando Pereira da Fonseca
  • Rui António Rodrigues Ramos
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)


The quality of life in cities depends on the existence of suitable conditions to walk. The aim of this chapter is to assess the conditions provided to pedestrians in two cities with different urban morphologies: Qazvin (Iran) and Porto (Portugal). The assessment was performed through a model that combines multi-criteria analysis with street network connectivity to evaluate the pedestrian conditions. The multi-criteria analysis was carried out by using four criteria and nine sub-criteria that mostly influence walkability and by involving a group of experts from Qazvin and Porto. Street network connectivity was assessed by Space Syntax. Results showed that Qazvin provides better conditions and a network of pedestrian streets more connected than Porto. The model can be a useful tool for planning more walkable and sustainable cities in urban areas.


Walkability Pedestrian network Multi-criteria analysis Street network connectivity analysis 


  1. Badland H, White M, MacAulay G, Eagleson S, Mavoa S, Pettit C, Corti B (2013) Using simple agent-based modeling to inform and enhance neighborhood walkability. Int J Health Geogr 12–58Google Scholar
  2. Bahrainy H, Khosravi H (2013) The impact of urban design features and qualities on walkability and health in under-construction environments: the case of Hashtgerd New Town in Iran. Cities J 31:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buccolieri R, Salizzoni P, Soulhac L, Garbero V, Sabatino S (2015) The breathability of compact cities. Urban Climate 13:73–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cervero R, Kockelman K (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: density. Diversity Design Transp Res D 2:199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi W, Ranasinghe D, Bunavage K, DeShazo JR, Wu L, Seguel R, . . . Paulson SE (2016) The effects of the built environment, traffic patterns, and micrometeorology on street level ultrafine particle concentrations at a block scale: results from multiple urban sites. Sci Total Environ 553:474–485. Scholar
  6. Cubukcu E, Hepguzel B, Onder Z, Tumer B (2015) Active living for sustainable future: a model to measure “walk scores” via geographic information systems. Proc—Social Behav Sci 168:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dallman A, Di Sabatino S, Fernando HJS (2013) Flow and turbulence in an industrial/suburban roughness canopy. Environ Earth Sci J 13:279–307Google Scholar
  8. Evans G (2001) Cultural planning: an urban renaissance?. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Farrell T (2000) Urban regeneration through cultural master planning. In: Rose JBaM (ed) Rotterdam: urban lifestyles: spaces, places, peopleGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernando HJS, Zajic D, Di Sabatino S, Dimitrova R, Hedquist B, Dallman A (2010) Flow, turbulence, and pollutant dispersion in urban atmospheres. Physics 22:1–20Google Scholar
  11. Ferreira IA, Johansson M, Sternudd C, Fornara F (2016) Transport walking in urban neighbourhoods—impact of perceived neighbourhood qualities and emotional relationship. Landscape Urban Plann 150:60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forsyth A, Oakes M, Lee B, Schmitz K (2009) The built environment, walking, and physical activity: is the environment more important to some people than others? Transp Res Part D: Transport Environ 14(1):42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilderbloom J, Riggs W, Meares W (2015) Does walkability matter? An examination of walkability’s impact on housing values, foreclosures and crime. Cities 42:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gospodini A (2006) Portraying, classifying and understanding the emerging landscapes in the post-industrial city. Cities J 23:311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grecu V, Morar T (2013) A decision support system for improving pedestrian accessibility in neighborhoods. Proc Soc Behav Sci 92:588–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green CG, Klein EG (2011) Promoting active transportation as a partnership between urban planning and public health: the Columbus healthy places program. Public Health Rep 126(1):41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Havard C, Willis A (2012) Effects of installing a marked crosswalk on road crossing behavior and perceptions of the environment. Transp Res Part F 15:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillier B, Hanson J (1998) Space syntax as a research programme. Urban Morphol 2:108–110Google Scholar
  19. Hillier B, Iida S (2005) Network effects and psychological effects: a theory of urban movement. Paper presented at the Fifth international space syntax symposium, Delft, NetherlandGoogle Scholar
  20. Hillier B, Perm A, Hanson J, Grajewski T, Xu J (1993) Natural movement: or configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ Plan 19:29–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jabbari M, Fonseca F, Ramos R (2017) Combining multi-criteria and space syntax analysis to assess a pedestrian network: the case of Oporto. J Urban Des 23(1):23–41. Scholar
  22. Jamei E, Rajagopalan P (2017) Urban development and pedestrian thermal comfort in Melbourne. Sol Energy 144:681–698. Scholar
  23. Jayasinghe A, Sano K, Kasemsri R, Nishiuchi H (2016) Travelers’ route choice: comparing relative importance of metric, topological and geometric distance. Proc Eng 142:18–25. Scholar
  24. Jeong SK, Banyn YU (2016) A point-based angular analysis model for identifying attributes of spaces at nodes in street networks. Physica A: Stat Mech Appl 450:71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiang B, Liu C (2009) Street-based topological representations and analyses for predicting traffic flow in GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 23(9):1119–1137. Scholar
  26. Koh P, Wong Y (2013) Influence of infrastructural compatibility factors on walking and cycling route choices. J Environ Psychol 36:202–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamíquiz PJ, López-Domínguez J (2015) Effects of built environment on walking at the neighbourhood scale. A new role for street networks by modelling their configurational accessibility? Transp Res Part A 74:148–163Google Scholar
  28. Lerman Y, Omer I (2016) Urban area types and spatial distribution of pedestrians: lessons from Tel Aviv. Comput Environ Urban Syst 55:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lerman Y, Rofè Y, Omer I (2014) Using space syntax to model pedestrian movement in urban transportation planning. Geograph Anal 46:392–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li Y, Xiao L, Ye Y, Xu W, Law A (2016) Understanding tourist space at a historic site through space syntax analysis: the case of Gulan gyu, China. J Tourism Manag 52:30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lundberg B, Weber J (2014) Non-motorized transport and university populations: an analysis of connectivity and network perceptions. J Transp Geogr 39:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marquet O, Miralles-Guasch C (2016) City of motorcycles. On how objective and subjective factors are behind the rise of two-wheeled mobility in Barcelona. Transp Policy 52:37–45. Scholar
  33. Martinelli L, Battisti A, Matzarakis A (2015) Multicriteria analysis model for urban open space renovation: an application for Rome. Sustain Cities Soc 14:10–20. Scholar
  34. McCahill C, Garrick NW (2008) The applicability of space syntax to bicycle facility planning. J Transp Res Board 2074:46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mehta V (2008) Walkable streets: pedestrian behavior, perceptions and attitudes. J Urbanism: Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 1(3):217–245Google Scholar
  36. Moura F, Cambra P, Gonçalves AB (2017) Measuring walkability for distinct pedestrian groups with a participatory assessment method: a case study in Lisbon. Landscape Urban Plann 157:282–296. Scholar
  37. Nasir M, Lim C, Nahavandi S, Creighton D (2014) A genetic fuzzy system to model pedestrian walking path in a built environment. Simul Model Pract Theory 45:18–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oh K, Jeong S (2007) Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape Urban Plann 82(1–2):25–32. Scholar
  39. Önder DE, Gigi Y (2010) Reading urban spaces by the space-syntax method: a proposal for the South Haliç Region. 27:260–271Google Scholar
  40. Panagopoulos T, Duque J, Dan M (2016) Urban planning with respect to environmental quality and human well-being. Environ Pollut 208:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peiravian F, Derrible S, Ijaz F (2014) Development and application of the Pedestrian Environment Index (PEI). J Transp Geography (39):73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peponis J, Hadjinikolaou E, Livieratos C, Fatouros DA (1989) The spatial core of urban culture. In: Ekistics. Athens Center of Ekistics of the Athens Technological Organization, 1/1989, pp 43–55Google Scholar
  43. Penn A, Hillier B, Banister D, Xu j (1998) Configurational modelling of urban movement networks. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 25(1):59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pourjafar M, Amini M, Hatami Varzaneh E, Mahdavinejad M (2014) Role of bazaars as a unifying factor in traditional cities of Iran: The Isfahan bazaar. Front Architect Res J 3:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Socharoentum M, Karimi HA (2016) Multi-modal transportation with multi-criteria walking (MMT-MCW): personalized route recommender. Comput Environ Urban Syst 55:44–54. Scholar
  46. Tavassoli M (2016) Urban structure in Islamic territories urban structure in hot arid environments: strategies for sustainable development. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zadeh LA (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. J Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhou J, Zhang X, Shen L (2015) Urbanization bubble: four quadrants measurement model. Cities 46:8–15. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mona Jabbari
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fernando Pereira da Fonseca
    • 1
  • Rui António Rodrigues Ramos
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations