Abstract
ABSTRACTThe ‘walkable neighbourhood’ is promoted by planners and designers as a normative goal yet resident responses to this environment, the ultimate occupants of these settings, remain unclear. Completing focus groups with 11 diverse residents’ groups, a critically understudied politically engaged population which often seeks to shape planning practice, this paper unpacks residents’ environmental preferences and examines their relationship to neighbourhood attributes commonly associated with walking. Five dominant preferences relating to local amenities, social interaction, noise, greenspace and density were identified. Positive interactions between these and the considered attributes suggest that groups might find much to like in the walkable neighbourhood. The implications for delivering walkable neighbourhoods are considered.
Highlights
Walkable neighbourhoods, i.e. neighbourhoods that encourage walking (Lee and Talen 2014), are promoted as a normative goal by planners and policymakers (Cozens and Hillier 2008), by international bodies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) (Edwards and Tsouros, 2006) and the United Nations (UN) (UN-Habitat, 2014) and by influential models of urbanism, especially New Urbanism (Talen 2013) and Smart Growth (Downs, 2005)
Five dominant preferences relating to local service provision, noise, social interaction, greenspace and density were mentioned frequently and emphatically across and within all groups
This paper has presented a relatively novel approach to investigating residents’ preferences for walkable neighbourhoods
Summary
I.e. neighbourhoods that encourage walking (Lee and Talen 2014), are promoted as a normative goal by planners and policymakers (Cozens and Hillier 2008), by international bodies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) (Edwards and Tsouros, 2006) and the United Nations (UN) (UN-Habitat, 2014) and by influential models of urbanism, especially New Urbanism (Talen 2013) and Smart Growth (Downs, 2005). A walkable neighbourhood is typically seen to comprise of high density, compact, mixed use, amenity rich, transit-orientated development, good pedestrian infrastructure and pedestrian-orientated streets (Lee and Talen 2014, Carmona et al, 2010, Calthorpe, 1993, Duany et al, 2010). It has been suggested, and some evidence indicates, that this development pattern provides multiple benefits including increased physical activity (Frank et al 2010), reduced carbon emissions (Coupland, 1997), less congestion, better air quality, less sprawl, a ‘richer public domain’ (Calthorpe, 1993) and greater social capital (Leyden, 2003). More recently, evidence is accumulating of support for elements of the walkable neighbourhood (Song and Knaap, 2003; Leinberger and Alfonzo, 2012; Handy et al 2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
