An Urban Form Study on Walking Choice (A Case Study in The Central Business District Jenderal Sudirman, Pekanbaru)

Ade Wahyudi*  -  Universitas Islam Riau, Indonesia
Febby Asteriani  -  Universitas Islam Riau
Rona Muliana  -  Universitas Islam Riau
Adam Raihan Aulia  -  Universitas Islam Riau
Muhammad Fikri  -  Universitas Islam Riau

(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: 10.30659/jpsa.v20i1.24717

Supp. File(s): Research Instrument

                                                                          ABSTRACT

Urban form and walking choice have complex relationships. Initial research has shown some drawbacks, uncertainties, and no inclusive results regarding the impact of urban form on walking choice since previous studies disregard walking purposes (utilitarian, transit, and non-utilitarian). The quantitative approach uses a statistical analysis and scoring index from the International Physical Activity and Environmental Project, while the qualitative approach applies a descriptive-analytic to describe travel behaviour and preference. The aims of this research are (1) to measure the walkability index with the urban forms approach, (2) to analyze the travel preference, travel behaviour for walking choice, (3) to see the effect of urban form on walking choice. The results showed that only two areas are walkable (Grid 2 with WAI 4,58 and Grid 5 with WAI 0,87). Meanwhile, the rest of the grids remained negative and had very low walkability indicators. Regarding walking preference, 63.40% of respondents contributed to non-active walking choice, whereas only 36.6% accounted for walking as their basic transportation mode. Interestingly, nearly 50% of walking preferences are done for non-utilitarian purposes since walking is still needed to keep their bodies healthy. Besides, the urban form variables have differently impacted on walking choice purposes. Firstly, walking for utilitarian purposes has been affected by entropy (P>{z} 0.049), floor area ratio (P>{z} 0.039), and household density (P>{z} 0.038). Therefore, walking for transit purposes has been influenced by connectivity (P>{z} 0.039), whereas walking for non-utilitarian purposes has been affected by household density (P>{z} 0.031).

Keyword : surban form, utilitarian, transit, non-utilitarian, walkability

 

ABSTRAK

Bentuk kota dan pemilihan moda berjalan kaki memiliki hubungan yang kompleks. Penelitian sebelumnya menunjukkan kelemahan, ketidakpastian, dan tidak adanya hasil yang jelas terkait bagaimana pengaruh bentuk kota terhadap pemilihan moda berjalan kaki. Hal ini disebabkan karena tidak mempertimbangkan jenis-jenis pelaku pejalan kaki (utilitarian, transit, non-utilitarin). Penelitian ini menggunakan metoda kombinasi, yaitu metoda kuantitatif dengan teknik analisis dan rumus indeks berjalan kaki dari IPEN Project dan analisis skoring untuk melihat klasifikasi tingkat berjalan kaki. Kemudian, metoda kualitatif menggunakan teknik analysis statistic deskriptif dengan distribusi frekuensi terkait perilaku perjalanan dan pemilihan moda transportasi. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk (1) mengukur indeks berjalan kaki dengan pendekatan bentuk kota, (2) menganalisis pemilihan perilaku perjalanan, (3) menganalisis pengaruh bentuk kota terhadap pemilihan moda berjalan kaki. Hasil analisis terlihat bahwa hanya 2 area saja yang termasuk ramah bagi pejalan kaki (Grid 2 dengan WAI 4,58 dan Grid 5 dengan WAI 0,87). Kemudian, hanya 36.6% responden yang menjawab berjalan kaki sebagai moda transportasi utama, sementara sisanya menggunakan kendaraan. Menariknya, 50% responden berjalan kaki untuk tujuan olahraga dan rekreasi (non-utilitarian) dengan alasan menjaga tubuh agar tetap sehat. Variabel bentuk kota yang mempengaruhi pejalan utilitarian adalah entropi (P>{z} 0.049),, lantai bangunan (P>{z} 0.039),  dan kepadatan permukiman (P>{z} 0.038). Pejalan kaki transit hanya dipengaruhi oleh konektivitas (P>{z} 0.039) dan pejalan kaki non-utilitarian hanya dipengaruhi oleh kepadatan permukiman (P>{z} 0.031).

Kata kunci : Bentuk kota, pejalan kaki utilitarian, transit, non-utilitarian, walkability

Supplement Files

  1. Adolfsson, P., Lindblad, J., & Peacock, S. (2021). Translations of sustainability in urban planning documents — A longitudinal study of comprehensive plans in three European cities. Cities, 119(August), 103360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103360
  2. Alawadi, K. (2017). Rethinking Dubai's urbanism: Generating sustainable form-based urban design strategies for an integrated neighborhood. Cities, 60, 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.10.012
  3. Alberti, M., Booth, D., Hill, K., Coburn, B., Avolio, C., Coe, S., & Spirandelli, D. (2007). The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.08.001
  4. Altarans, I., & Pradoto, W. (2019). Urban Compactness Di Wilayah Perkotaan Kendal. Jurnal Pembangunan Wilayah & Kota, 14(4), 281. https://doi.org/10.14710/pwk.v14i4.17822
  5. Bauman, A. E., Sallis, J. F., Dzewaltowski, D. A., & Owen, N. (2002). Toward a better understanding of the influences on physical activity: The role of determinants, correlates, causal variables, mediators, moderators, and confounders. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2 SUPPL. 1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00469-5
  6. Beatley, T., Manning, K., & Press, D. C. I. (1993). Economy, and Community Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management Policy Design for Democracy by James A . Throgmorton Regional Planning Graduate Program in Urban and. Bourassa 1991, 274–275.
  7. Berisha, E., Cotella, G., Janin Rivolin, U., Solly, A., 2021. Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development: a European typology. Eur. Plan. Stud. 29, 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1726295.
  8. Boulange, C., Gunn, L., Giles-Corti, B., Mavoa, S., Pettit, C., & Badland, H. (2017). Examining associations between urban design attributes and transport mode choice for walking, cycling, public transport, and private motor vehicle trips. Journal of Transport and Health, 6(August), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.07.007
  9. Cao, X., Handy, S. L., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2006). The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation, 33(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-005-7027-2
  10. Cerin, E., Leslie, E., & Owen, N. (2009). Explaining socio-economic status differences in walking for transport: An ecological analysis of individual, social and environmental factors. Social Science and Medicine, 68(6), 1013–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.008
  11. Clifton, K., Ewing, R., Knaap, G. J., & Song, Y. (2008). Quantitative analysis of urban form: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Urbanism, 1(1), 17–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549170801903496
  12. Coppola, P., Papa, E., Angiello, G., & Carpentieri, G. (2014). Urban form and Sustainability: The Case Study of Rome. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 160(Cit), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.169
  13. Crane, R. (1996). Cars and drivers in the new suburbs: Linking access to travel in neotraditional planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975670
  14. Dobesova, Z., & Krivk, T. (2012). Walkability Index in the Urban Planning: A Case Study in Olomouc City. Advances in Spatial Planning, 3. https://doi.org/10.5772/36587
  15. Gascon, M., Götschi, T., Nazelle, A. De, Gracia, E., Ambròs, A., Márquez, S., Marquet, O., Avila-palencia, I., Brand, C., Iacorossi, F., Raser, E., Gaupp-berghausen, M., Dons, E., Laeremans, M., Kahlmeier, S., Sánchez, J., & Gerike, R. (2019). Correlates of Walking for Travel in Seven European Cities : The PASTA Project. 127(September), 1–13.
  16. Gibbs, D. C., Longhurst, J., & Braithwaite, C. (1998). "Struggling with sustainability": weak and strong interpretations of sustainable development within local authority policy. Environment and Planning A, 30(8), 1351–1365. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301351
  17. Gim, T. H. T. (2015). The relationship between land use and automobile travel utility: A Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 41, 188–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.004
  18. Guerra, E., Caudillo, C., Monkkonen, P., & Montejano, J. (2018). Urban form, transit supply, and travel behavior in Latin America: Evidence from Mexico's 100 largest urban areas. Transport Policy, 69(April), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.06.001
  19. Haase, D., Kabisch, N., & Haase, A. (2013). Endless Urban Growth? On the Mismatch of Population, Household and Urban Land Area Growth and Its Effects on the Urban Debate. PLoS ONE, 8(6), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066531
  20. Handy, S. L., & Clifton, K. J. (2001). Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation, 28(4), 317–346. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011850618753
  21. Heckman, J. J., Pinto, R., & Savelyev, P. A. (1999). Sustainable Cities. In Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951–952.
  22. Henk A Becker, F. V. (2011). Social Impact Assessment, Conceptual and Methodological Advances. USA, 348. http://library1.nida.ac.th/termpaper6/sd/2554/19755.pdf
  23. Herrmann-Lunecke, M. G., Mora, R., & Vejares, P. (2021). Perception of the built environment and walking in pericentral neighborhoods in Santiago, Chile. Travel Behaviour and Society, 23(January), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.01.002
  24. Hidayati, I., Yamu, C., & Tan, W. (2021). You have to drive: Impacts of planning policies on urban form and mobility behavior in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Journal of Urban Management, 10(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2020.12.004
  25. Holden, E., & Norland, I. T. (2005). Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: Household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the Greater Oslo Region. Urban Studies, 42(12), 2145–2166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500332064
  26. Hou, Y. (2019). Polycentric urban form and non-work travel in Singapore: A focus on seniors. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 73(July), 245–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.07.003
  27. Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X05285119
  28. Joh, K., Nguyen, M. T., & Boarnet, M. G. (2012). Can Built and Social Environmental Factors Encourage Walking among Individuals with Negative Walking Attitudes? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X11427914
  29. Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat. (2017). Pedoman Bahan Konstruksi Bangunan dan Rekayasa Sipil: Perencanaan Teknis Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki. SE Menteri PUPR, 1–43.
  30. Koutra, C., & Edwards, J. (2012). Capacity Building through Socially Responsible Tourism Development: A Ghanaian Case Study. Journal of Travel Research, 51(6), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287512451141
  31. Kumakoshi, Y., Koizumi, H., & Yoshimura, Y. (2021). Diversity and density of urban functions in station areas. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 89(July), 101679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2021.101679
  32. Lee, C. (2020). Impacts of two-scale urban form and their combined effects on commute modes in U.S. metropolitan areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 88(September), 102821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102821
  33. Liao, F., Tian, Q., Arentze, T., Huang, H. J., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (2020). Travel preferences of multimodal transport systems in emerging markets: The case of Beijing. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 138(January 2019), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.05.026
  34. Lindelöw, D., Svensson, Å., Brundell-Freij, K., & Winslott Hiselius, L. (2017). Satisfaction or compensation? The interaction between walking preferences and neighborhood design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 50, 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.11.021
  35. McIntosh, J., Trubka, R., Kenworthy, J., & Newman, P. (2014). The role of urban form and transit in city car dependence: Analysis of 26 global cities from 1960 to 2000. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 33, 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.08.013
  36. Mcmullen, B. S. (2018). 8 - Evolution of transportation policy and economics. In Transportation Policy and Economic Regulation. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812620-2/00008-0
  37. Merlin, L. A., Singer, M., & Levine, J. (2021). Influences on transit ridership and transit accessibility in UU.S.urban areas. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 150(April), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.04.014
  38. Ozawa, H., Fukuda, A., Malaitham, S., Vichiensan, V., Luathep, P., & Numa, H. (2021). Evaluation of walking environments around urban railway stations in Bangkok and consideration of improvement plans. Asian Transport Studies, 7(October 2020), 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eastsj.2021.100038
  39. Pickrell, D. (2015). Trends in Personal Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use : Evidence from the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey Trends in Personal Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use : Evidence from the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey Don Pickrell U . S . DOT Volp. January.
  40. Report, W. C. (2020). Unpacking the Value of Sustainable Urbanization. https://doi.org/10.18356/c41ab67e-en
  41. Rhodes, R.E., McEwan, D., Rebar, A.L., 2019. Theories of physical activity behaviour change: a history and synthesis of approaches. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 42, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.010.
  42. Rodrigue, J.-P. (2020). Transportation and Land Use. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edi, Vol. 11). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-102295-5.10327-0
  43. Rodríguez-Ãlvarez, J. (2014). Planning cities for the post-carbon age : A metabolic analysis of the urban form.
  44. Sofwan, M., & Tanjung, M. H. (2020). Evaluation Study Of Walkability Index In Central Business District (CBD) Area, Pekanbaru City. Journal of Geoscience, Engineering, Environment, and Technology, 5(3), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.25299/jgeet.2020.5.3.4181
  45. US EPA. (2001). u i l t a n d N a t u r a l n v i r o n me n t s. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions Among Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality, 148.
  46. Villagra, P., Rojas, C., Ohno, R., Xue, M., & Gómez, K. (2014). A GIS-base exploration of the relationships between open space systems and urban form for the adaptive capacity of cities after an earthquake: The cases of two Chilean cities. Applied Geography, 48, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.01.010
  47. Vojnovic, I. (2006). Building communities to promote physical activity: A multi-scale geographical analysis. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 88(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2006.00206.x
  48. Walters, J. (2014). Public transport policy implementation in South Africa: <i>Quo vadis</i>? Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/jtscm.v8i1.134
  49. Wang, K., & Zhang, W. (2021). The role of urban form in the performance of shared automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 93(March), 102744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102744
  50. Williams, K. (2001). Designing the city: towards a more sustainable urban form. In URBAN DESIGN International (Vol. 6, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000045
  51. Wolff, M., Haase, D., & Haase, A. (2018). Compactor spread? A quantitative spatial model of urban areas in Europe since 1990. PLoS ONE, 13(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192326
  52. Xu, G., Zhou, Z., Jiao, L., & Zhao, R. (2020). Compact Urban Form and Expansion Pattern Slow Down the Decline in Urban Densities: A Global Perspective. Land Use Policy, 94(January), 104563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104563
  53. Yang, Y. (2016). A dynamic framework on travel mode choice focusing on utilitarian walking based on the integration of current knowledge. Journal of Transport and Health, 3(3), 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.03.002
  54. Yuan, M., Song, Y., Huang, Y., Hong, S., & Huang, L. (2018). Exploring the Association between Urban Form and Air Quality in China. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 38(4), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17711516

Jurnal Planologi
Published by Pusat Studi Planologi Universitas Islam Sultan Agung Semarang, in collaboration with Asosiasi Sekolah Perencanaan Indonesia.
Jl. Kaligawe Raya KM. 4 Semarang, Indonesia
Phone: +6212345678
Email: jurnalplanologi@unissula.ac.id

View My Stats

e-ISSN: 1829-9172

p-ISSN: 2615-5257

DOI : 10.30659/japs

Creative Commons License

Get a feed by atom here, RRS2 here and OAI Links here

apps