Walkability scoring: Why and how does a three-dimensional pedestrian network matter?

Previous walkability scoring systems are all based on road networks, even though roads are not designed for pedestrians. To calculate an accurate walking score, we need pedestrian network data. This is especially the case in cities such as Hong Kong, where pedestrians are separated from vehicles by footbridges, underpasses or surface sidewalks. In this paper, we investigate why and how a three-dimensional pedestrian network makes a difference in walkability scoring, using Hong Kong as a case city. We developed a walkability scoring system based on networks and amenities, using multiple open-source programming platforms and languages. Separately, we calculated walkability scores (on a scale of 0–100) using the three-dimensional pedestrian network and road network of the city, comparing the differences between the two. A GIS raster analysis was conducted to extract walkability scoring differences from the two walkability surfaces, followed by a univariate linear model to examine how the scores were underestimated if without using the three-dimensional pedestrian network. Results show that streets were considered twice as walkable if rated by pedestrian network rather than road network. Walkability scores were 92% higher on average. The fitted model shows that the mean score underestimations were significantly different for different three-dimensional network elements. Surface sidewalks had an average underestimation of 33.75 (p < 0.001), footbridges and underground paths expanded the underestimations by 3.85 and 2.97 (both p < 0.001), respectively, and the linkages to footbridge and underground path enlarged the surface sidewalk underestimations by 2.68 and 4.92 (both p < 0.001). We suggest that walkability evaluation systems should be developed on pedestrian networks instead of road networks, especially for high-density cities.