Sponsor GO GREEN Financed by the Austrian Research Promotion - - PDF document

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Ralf Risser, Daniel Bell & Karin Ausserer

Factum Chaloupka & Risser OG

GO GREEN

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Sponsor

Financed by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency FFG

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Assumptions

• Desire for green areas in cities.
• Attractive design & equipment incites to walk

instead of using car for short distances (< 1km).

• Providing green areas in the public space is one

way to enhance attractiveness.

• Green policy could motivate (more) people to

walk (more). Project GoGreen: analyse relation between active mobility and green areas.

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Methods and procedure

• National & international best practice &

potentials for application in an Austrian context.

• Literature Analysis & internet research.
• Expert talks with colleagues grey literature.
• Qualitative interviews: expert interviews (13).
• Needs & wishes of inhabitants: focus group

interviews (20 persons all age gro u

• Expert interviews and focus group interviews

basis for quantitative, standardised survey.

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Quantitative verbal data

General survey: Infrastructure active mobility

• 414 road-side interviews in Vienna, November 2015
• Age 14 to 92 (mean = 41,19); 212 females & 202 males;

39% walkers, 33% PT transport users, 10 % cyclists and 18% car drivers (self-declared)

Comparison study (July 2016): safety vs. attract

• 200 road-side surveys in two inner city streets – one

with & one without greenery

• 47% females & 53% males, 13 to 90 years (mean =

41,3); 40% walkers, 35% PT users, 13% cyclists, 12% car drivers

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Vienna-wide survey

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Vienna-wide road user interviews

• 75% consider urban greenery as important for

daily walks (7% negative, 18% neutral).

• 46%: green areas more important than car

parks.

• 46% would walk more often if the city was

greener (focus groups: “greenery probably most important incentive for walking”). People who walk a lot appreciate urban greenery more.

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018 Statement (answer on 5 scale Likert) Agree (mostly) Neither nor Do not agree (mostly) For me greenery is important on all my ways in my everyday mobility 75% 18% 7% There should be more trees in Vienna 64% 27% 9% Additional greenery is more important than car parks 46% 27% 27% I will walk more often, if the city is greener 46% 17% 37% I will cycle more often, if the city is greener 31% 14% 55% On my everyday routes I choose mainly green routes 49% 21% 44% On my everyday routes I walk mainly in traffic calmed areas 57% 17% 26% On my everyday routes I choose green routes even if it means to make a detour 35% 21% 44%

Agreement with statements

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Subjective safety vs. attractiveness

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Subjective safety vs. attractiveness

• Survey results indicated that greenery is

important for active mobility. BUT: – What kind of effect does it have on the subjective feeling of safety? Two inner city streets in Vienna were compared according to these aspects:

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Lerchenfelderstraße

• Arterial street running through the 7th district of

Vienna.

• Traffic in both directions.
• Parking lanes on both sides and tram tracks in

the middle of the street in both directions.

• Speed limit 50km/h.
• Numerous shops, pubs and restaurants.
• Pavements approximately 2,5 m wide.
• Greenery (trees/shrubs) on one side.

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Lerchenfelderstraße

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Neustiftgasse

• Arterial street in the 7th district, parallel to

Lerchenfelderstraße.

• One way street, parking lanes on both sides.
• One lane for cars and one for buses.
• Speed limit 30km/h.
• A few shops, pubs and restaurants, pavement

approximately 2m wide, no greenery.

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Neustiftgasse

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Collected data

• In each street 100 personal road-side interviews

in June & July 2016.

• Quota sampling according to gender and age.
• Participants between 13 & 90 (mean = 41,03).
• All participants lived in Vienna & majority were

familiar with the streets.

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Attractiveness

I like walking in this street

21% 28% 38% 9% 4% 18% 23% 27% 22% 10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

totally agree rather agree neither nor rather disagree totally disagree

LS NG How attractive is this street?

6% 20% 52% 18% 4% 6% 14% 29% 35% 16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

very attractive rather attractive average rather unattractive very unattractive LS NG

I would like to sit down on a bench in this street

25% 16% 18% 20% 21% 21% 9% 6% 21% 43%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

totally agree rather agree neither nor rather disagree totally disagree LS NG

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Attractiveness

• Lerchenfelderstraße (LS) with greenery scored

significantly better; significantly more consider it likely to sit down on a bench (41% vs. 30%; p=,005).

• 32% do not like walking in Neubaugasse NG, in

LS 11% (p= ,027).

• Those who liked to walk in LS shops,

architecture and greenery.

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Subjective safety

• NG was rated significantly better: 50% feel safe

(as pedestrians) in NG, in LS is 24%.

• 21 % would let children walk on their own in NG

and 11% in LS.

• Car speeds are experienced lower in NG than in

LS (p=,049).

• Results indicate that subjective feelings of

safety do not correspond with greenery but rather with vehicle speeds.

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Subjective safety

I feel safe as pedestrian in this street

24% 28% 28% 16% 4% 50% 27% 20% 2% 1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

totally agree rather agree neither nor rather disagree totally disagree

LS NG

I would let school children walk on their

• wn

11% 15% 20% 22% 32% 21% 21% 20% 20% 18%

0% 5% 1 0% 1 5% 20% 25% 30% 35%

totally agree rather agree neither nor rather disagree totally disagree LS NG

Car traffic is too fast in this street

28% 28% 20% 19% 5% 26% 23% 14% 15% 22%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

totally agree rather agree neither nor rather disagree totally disagree LS NG

Comparison Lerchenfelderstraße (LS) – Neubaugasse (NG)

Lerchenfelderstraße = 50 km/h = „high speed/green“ Neubaugasse = 30 km/h = „low speed/no green“ N Mean SD Min. Max. Sign. I like walking here

high speed/green 99 3,5354 1,05282 1,00 5,00 0,027 low speed/no green 100 3,1700 1,24766 1,00 5,00

There is enough green here

high speed/green 99 2,7071 1,29562 1,00 5,00 0,000 low speed/no green 100 1,6900 0,95023 1,00 5,00

Cars are too fast here

high speed/green 96 3,5521 1,23006 1,00 5,00 0,049 low speed/no green 100 3,1600 1,51571 1,00 5,00

Reduce parking places here

high speed/green 100 3,1500 1,55294 1,00 5,00 0,170 low speed/no green 99 3,4444 1,45842 1,00 5,00

I would sit on a park bench here

high speed/green 99 3,0606 1,48336 1,00 5,00 0,005 low speed/no green 100 2,4400 1,60378 1,00 5,00

I can experience nature here

high speed/green 99 1,9697 0,99442 1,00 5,00 0,000 low speed/no green 100 1,2900 0,72884 1,00 5,00

I would like more trees here

high speed/green 99 3,8485 1,28860 1,00 5,00 0,026 low speed/no green 100 4,2400 1,17310 1,00 5,00

More green on the walls!

high speed/green 97 3,9278 1,25206 1,00 5,00 0,806 low speed/no green 100 3,9700 1,14992 1,00 5,00

I feel safe as a pedestrian here

high speed/green 99 3,5253 1,14592 1,00 5,00 0,000 low speed/no green 100 4,2300 0,90849 1,00 5,00

I would let children walk alone here

high speed 99 2,5253 1,36534 1,00 5,00 0,006 low speed 100 3,0700 1,40888 1,00 5,00 1 2 3 4 5 high speed / green low speed / no green high speed / green low speed / no green high speed / green low speed / no green high speed / green low speed / no green high speed / green low speed / no green high speed / green low speed / no green high speed / green low speed / no green high speed / green low speed / no green high speed / green low speed / no green high speed / green low speed / no green I like walking here There is enough green here Cars are too fast here Reduce parking places here I would sit on a park bench here I can experience nature here I would like more trees here More green on the walls! I feel safe as a pedestrian here I would let children walk alone here

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Conclusion and suggestions

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Conclusion

• Greenery is an important aspect to make

walking an enjoyable mode, for all.

• Especially important for those who walk much.
• Better cooperation between city gardening &

traffic planning departments: Traffic calming measures have potential to increase feeling of safety but do not automatically improve attractiveness, and vice versa. Measures to improve attractiveness (greenery) and subjective safety (lower vehicle speeds) need to be combined.

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Some suggestions (EU projects)

Quality criteria according to WALCYNG/HOTEL Contribution of greenery Safety (subjective and

• bjective)

Separation to cars – protection against accidents; protection against harassment, lively streets prevent harassments Comfort Reduction of stress ; more space: broad sidewalks – accessibility; protection against weather conditions (against sun, rain, wind); Aesthetic Eye catcher; experiences of nature perception of seasons; noise and air pollution reduction Accessibility (attracts different kind of target groups) Sustainability Climate stabilising function; prevention of large scale sealing Social Communication Inducement of activities and communication Participation “Community gardening” - promotion of communication and social contact; identification with the neighbourhood and the district Prevention of vandalism by creating a sense of togetherness

ICTCT – Vancouver March 2018

Thank you very much! Vielen Dank!

Contact: Ralf.risser@factum.at