Pedestrian Experience: Affordances and Habits in Utility Walking – Case Otaniemi Campus Master’s Thesis Department of Built Environment School of Engineering Aalto University Espoo, 2 May 2016 Susanna Kari Bachelor of Science in Technology Supervisor: Professor Marketta Kyttä Instructors: Jenni Kuoppa Kaisa Schmidt-Thomé i ii Aalto University, P.O. BOX 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Abstract of master's thesis Author Susanna Kari Title of thesis Pedestrian Experience: Affordances and Habits in Utility Walking – Case Otaniemi Campus Degree programme Degree Programme in Real Estate Economics Major Land-use Planning and Urban Studies Code M3038 Thesis supervisor Professor Marketta Kyttä Thesis advisors Jenni Kuoppa, Kaisa Schmidt-Thomé Date 2.5.2016 Number of pages 97 + 17 Language English Abstract Walkability has been studied extensively and lately, the interest towards it as a research topic has even increased. However, the user experience of walking and the subjective perceptions of pedestrians have been left for less attention. By involving the actual end users of the walking environment and capturing their local knowledge, this study has researched how walkability can be evaluated based on pedestrian experience. This research was conducted as a case study of the Otaniemi campus (Espoo, Finland) following the softGIS methodology in order to gain exploratory understanding of the phenomenon of walkability based on pedestrian experience. A model of affordances in utility walking was theoretically constructed and later used as the basis for the walkability evaluation criterion to be filled by the actual pedestrians of the area. The data was collected with an online questionnaire and analyzed by using several methods. According to the results, the case area Otaniemi is generally a very walkable environment based on pedestrian experience and the whole area is widely utilized for utility walking purposes. According to the analysis, the pedestrian's habit strength in utility walking is not a significant predictor of how the walking environment is evaluated. The research process has thus revealed that in evaluating walkability based on pedestrian experience, there are both subjective and more objective factors that influence the utility walking experience. The walking environment offers the pedestrian affordances to be perceived and actualized through five main categories: safety, functional characteristics, aesthetics, comfort and convenience, and social characteristics. In a holistic evaluation of walkability based on pedestrian experience, all these categories should be taken into account. The research has also demonstrated that the personal history of the pedestrians in the sense of habit strength in utility walking does not have to be especially considered in evaluating walkability. Keywords walkability, utility walking, pedestrian experience, user-centered planning iii iv Aalto-yliopisto, PL 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Diplomityön tiivistelmä Tekijä Susanna Kari Työn nimi Kävelijäkokemus: Tarjoumat ja kävelytottumukset hyötykävelyssä – Tapaustutkimus Otaniemen kampus Koulutusohjelma Kiinteistötalouden koulutusohjelma Pääaine Maankäytön suunnittelu ja kaupunkitutkimus Koodi M3038 Työn valvoja Professori Marketta Kyttä Työn ohjaajat Jenni Kuoppa, Kaisa Schmidt-Thomé Päivämäärä 2.5.2016 Sivumäärä 97 + 17 Kieli Englanti Tiivistelmä Käveltävyyttä on tutkittu laajasti ja kiinnostus sen tutkimiseen kasvaa edelleen. Kävelemisen nk. käyttäjäkokemus ja jalankulkijoiden subjektiiviset kokemukset kävely- ympäristöstä on kuitenkin jätetty alan tutkimuksessa vähemmälle huomiolle. Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena on korostaa kävely-ympäristön loppukäyttäjien hiljaisen tiedon merkitystä ympäristön arvioinnissa: tutkimuksen keskiössä se, miten käveltävyyttä voidaan arvioida kävijäkokemukseen perustuen. Tämä tutkimus toteutettiin tapaustutkimuksena, jonka kohteena oli Otaniemen kampus Espoossa. Tutkimus noudatti pehmoGIS-metodologiaa tavoitteessaan ymmärtää paremmin käveltävyyden arvioimista kävelijäkokemuksen mukaan. Tutkimuksen teoriaosassa määriteltiin malli kävely-ympäristön tarjoumista ja tätä mallia käytettiin myöhemmin pohjana käyttäjälähtöisessä käveltävyyden arvioimisessa kohdealueella. Data kerättiin nettipohjaisen kyselyn avulla ja analysoitiin useita eri metodeja käyttäen. Tulosten mukaan Otaniemi on yleisesti ottaen hyvin käveltävä ympäristö hyötykävelyn kontekstissa ja jalankulkijat näyttävät hyödyntävän aluetta laajasti hyötykävelyyn. Kävelytottumuksen voimakkuus ei näytä vaikuttavan siihen, miten kävely-ympäristöä arvioidaan. Tämän tutkimuksen tutkimusprosessi ja tulokset osoittavat, että kävelijäkokemukseen perustuvaan käveltävyyden arviointiin vaikuttavat sekä objektiiviset että subjektiiviset tekijät. Kävely-ympäristö tarjoaa kävelijälle havaittaviksi ja toteutettaviksi toimintamahdollisuuksia viidessä kategoriassa, jotka ovat turvallisuus, toiminnallisuus, esteettisyys, kätevyys ja mukavuus sekä sosiaalisuus. Kävelijäkokemukseen perustuvan käveltävyyden arvioimisessa tulisi ottaa huomioon kaikki nämä kategoriat. Tämä tutkimus on myös osoittanut, että jalankulkijan henkilökohtainen historia (hyötykävelytottumusten voimakkuus) voidaan jättää tällaisen käveltävyyden arvioimisen ulkopuolelle. Avainsanat käveltävyys, hyötykävely, kävelijäkokemus, käyttäjälähtöinen suunnittelu v vi Preface The topics of mobility and livability are personally were inspiring to me, walkability and walking in general even more so. Both physically and mentally, there are many ways to walk: walking can be done to get to a destination, to exercise, to relax or to enjoy the environment to name a few types. A pedestrian interacts with the environment in a way that is not possible by using any other means of transportation. These features make the topics of walking and walkability fascinating. The research process of this Master's thesis work has been both rewarding and challenging. Despite the temporal frustrations and dead ends, the development and reporting of this study has been motivating and educational for me. Especially, this research process has improved my scientific thinking and methodological skills. It has also made me understand that some things take time to evolve: sometimes you need to take time off and look at your work from a distance. I want to thank my supervisor Marketta for her guidance in this process and for believing in my ideas. I want to also thank my instructors Jenni and Kaisa for their academic support. Moreover, I am deeply grateful to my family and especially to Adolfo for having patience in listening to my thoughts and encouraging me in the moments of disbelief. I also highly appreciate the efforts of the community of Otaniemi: the guilds and the housing companies among other parties in the area have facilitated the research process by helping in the data collection. With this Master's thesis, I finish one memorable chapter of my life. Now, I am excited to take all the knowledge and skills with me to the next phases – both professionally and personally. Susanna Kari Espoo, the 2nd of May 2016 vii "There is so much more to walking than walking!" – Jan Gehl viii Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... xi List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xiii Abreviations....................................................................................................................... xv 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the study ............................................................................................ 1 1.3 Conceptual framework ........................................................................................ 2 1.4 Limitations of the research scope......................................................................... 4 1.5 Structure of the thesis .......................................................................................... 5 2 Pedestrian and the walking environment: The experience of walkability ................. 6 2.1 Walkable environments ....................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Defining walkability – What supports walking? ........................................... 6 2.1.2 Benefits and challenges of walkability .......................................................... 7 2.2 Pedestrian's perception and affordances ............................................................... 9 2.2.1 End users of the environment – A valuable source of information ................ 9 2.2.2 Pedestrians as end users of environment ..................................................... 10 2.2.3 Defining affordances .................................................................................. 11 2.2.4 Nature of affordances ................................................................................. 12 2.3 Habits: Personal history and travel behavior ...................................................... 13 2.3.1 Alternative views on “habit” ...................................................................... 14 2.3.2 Habit formation and past experiences ......................................................... 15 2.3.3 General habits and travel mode choices ...................................................... 16 3 Affordances in walkability ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 Evaluating walkability ....................................................................................... 17 3.2 Numerous variables ........................................................................................... 17 3.3 Model of affordances in walkability .................................................................. 18 3.3.1 Deconstructing existing instruments ........................................................... 18 3.3.2 Five categories of affordances in walkability .............................................. 21 3.3.3 Evaluation of the model ............................................................................. 24 3.3.4 Affordances in walkability: A theoretical view ........................................... 25 4 Research methodology ............................................................................................... 28 4.1 Investigating pedestrian experience ................................................................... 28 4.1.1 Finding a suitable methodology .................................................................. 28 4.1.2 Research strategy: Case study..................................................................... 29 4.1.3 Case: Otaniemi campus .............................................................................. 30 4.2 Data collection .................................................................................................. 32 4.2.1 Interactive questionnaire ............................................................................ 32 4.2.2 Observation ................................................................................................ 37 4.3 Data analysis ..................................................................................................... 37 4.4 Research process ............................................................................................... 38 5 Results ........................................................................................................................ 39 ix 5.1 Participants and representativeness of the sample ...............................................39 5.2 Utility walking in Otaniemi ................................................................................40 5.2.1 Reported routes in Otaniemi........................................................................40 5.2.2 Walking time and willingness to walk .........................................................44 5.3 Pedestrian experience in Otaniemi .....................................................................46 5.3.1 Main factors influencing pedestrian experience in Otaniemi ........................46 5.3.2 Item level evaluation of each category ........................................................48 5.3.3 Walkability based on pedestrian experience in Otaniemi .............................56 5.4 Predicting pedestrian perception: Habit strength and testing of variables ............58 5.5 Participants' suggestions for improving walkability in Otaniemi .........................63 6 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 69 6.1 Utility walking in Otaniemi ................................................................................69 6.1.1 Where do the utility walking routes go and why? ........................................69 6.1.2 The critical points of choosing walking as a travel mode .............................70 6.2 Pedestrian experience .........................................................................................71 6.2.1 Physical and subjective factors ....................................................................71 6.2.2 Validation of the evaluation criteria ............................................................71 6.3 Walkability based on pedestrian experience in Otaniemi ....................................73 6.3.1 Otaniemi through the five categories of walkability ....................................73 6.3.2 Walkability based on pedestrian experience in Otaniemi .............................76 6.4 Habit strength as predictor of perception ............................................................77 6.5 Understanding pedestrian experience through needs ...........................................78 7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 80 7.1 Walkability based on pedestrian experience .......................................................80 7.2 Suggestions for planning ....................................................................................83 7.3 Quality of the research .......................................................................................84 7.4 Limitations.........................................................................................................85 7.5 Future research ..................................................................................................86 References ......................................................................................................................... 88 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 95 Self-Report Habit Index (SRHI) for utility walking .....................................................95 Evaluation criterion: Walkability based on pedestrian experience .................................96 x