Enganche escolar, sentido de pertenencia y conexión escolar

The design guidelines for walkable community are clearly summarized in the work of McNally (2010) in which this study benefited. McNally argues that before design a neighbourhood, certain as-pects of creating a walkable community must either be well thought out, or have the necessary pieces in place to make the transformation easier. He adds that certain characteristics of existing neighbour-hoods may lead to creating walkable communities, while others may prove to be a hindrance. Some of these aspects can be adopted easier than others. According to McNally, a walkable street has to be designed based on the following design guidelines: Density, mixed use, neighbourhood scale, de-signed and sized sidewalks, block length, crosswalks, traffic calming measures and buffers (either planted trees or on-street parking). Likewise, Handy (2005) claims that certain characteristics of the built environment can influence people to walk either for leisure or for transport. These include: land use patterns, urban design features and transportation system. Next section gives a detailed discussion about the design considerations for walkable communities.

A number of studies (Gehl, 1980:2010; Jacobs, 1961; Handy, 2005; Ewing, 1999; Lawrence and Pe-ter, 2000; McNally, 2010) show that certain characteristics of the land use patterns, design fetures and transport system in place can influence walking in urban areas. These include:

Density (high to medium density)

Density (particularly high densities) is one of the most important characteristic of creating a walkable neighbourhood (McNally, 2010). The higher density levels, reduce trip distances, theoretically in-creasing the incentive to walk and bike and its measurement is simple, while low density can increase the distances between origins and destinations (Lawrence and Peter, 2000). Higher densities mean more residents or employees within walking distance of transit stops and stations (Ewing, 1999). High densities compress enough activities into a small area to allow people to walk to almost everything.

They mean more street life and the added interest and security that go with having more people around. They mean a greater propensity to walk or use transit, and lower auto ownership rates (ibid).

Higher densities in an area encourage more residents to walk to various land use destinations to access services, and increase the willingness to walk instead of driving. Studies (Saelens et al, 2003; Giles-Corti et al., 2009; Van Loon and Frank 2011) argue that a density of housing, people and land uses allows for a large number of activities within walking distance of a large number of people. Such a concentration of people and activities not only reduce the trip distance, but also provides a feeling of safety within the area as they are associated with what Jane Jacobs calls “eyes-on-the street” (Jacobs, 1961). According to Jacobs, concentration of activities offers a critical mass of people to monitor ac-tivity and also creates a sense of community.

On the contrary, the low density and sprawling development patterns lead to a growing dependence of automobiles as the main means of transport. McNally (2010) claims that the use of low-density devel-opment creates a disconnection between pedestrians and neighbourhood cores, thereby creating neighbourhoods that expand outside of residents’ walking zone comfort. As the time goes on, the low density and sprawled areas then begin to cater for accessibility and safety needs of motorists, which in turn can create a dangerous and unfriendly atmosphere for pedestrians. Van Loon and Frank (2011) add that it is easier for children to walk or bike to a friend’s house in higher density environments than in lower density environments.

50 Land use mix

Handy (2005) argues that if a city wants to promote walkability, creating mixed use development op-portunities is a key component of the process. Land use mix refers to the degree to which different land uses like commercial, residential, schools, offices, recreational, retail, parks, transit stations, res-taurants, and cafes among others are intermixed in the urban landscape (Lynch, 1984; Jacobs, 1961;

Hand, 2005; Ewing, 1999; Niemira, 2007; McNally, 2010; Drummond, 2011). A mix of land uses goes hand-in-hand with density to create proximity to destinations and activities, putting a number of different amenities all within walking distance of one another, and creating an environment in which it is much easier to walk for transport. The relative mix of land uses in a given area affects the dis-tance between trip origins and destinations (Lawrence and Peter, 2000). Similarly, Saelens et al, (2003) argue that sprawling developments tend to have a separation of land uses, with a few to no amenities within the walking distance. The separation of uses into residential, commercial, institutions and industrial zones increases travel distances, with similar dampening effects on non-motorized trav-el behavior. McNally (2010) argues further that by creating destinations within the 5-minute radius of housing, the streets become more lively and active because people have less need to use automobiles to travel to and from stores, entertainment, and recreation areas. This creates opportunities for people to live in places where services are accessible by bicycle or on foot in the one place.

Connectivity

Connectivity is one of the essentials in creating walkable cities and prosperous streets (Ewing, 1999;

Matchett, 2010; Southworth, 2005; UN-Habitat, 2013b). A community’s pedestrian connectivity is based on two factors: the availability of walking routes and the availability of destinations (Matchett, 2010). According to Matchett, the key pedestrian routes in walkable cities need to be direct and con-venient to enable pedestrians get into various destinations within a short time and distances. Walking routes should not be blocked by obstructions such as fences, informal vending activities, freeways or large parking lots. Pedestrians’ routes in a walkable city should be navigable by people of all ages and ability including the elderly, children, and people with disabilities. Likewise, the Institute of Transpor-tation Engineers (2010) claims that in order to create a walkable environment, the pedestrian network should be as continuous as possible so as to enable street users to choose the most direct routes and access urban property. Pendakur (2005) argues that due to poor connectivity and lack of pedestrian infrastructure, the only resources the poor have (i.e. time and physical energy) are depleted due to long walking distances.

When it comes to availability of destinations, Matchett adds that Walkable cities need to provide as many destinations as possible and which are within walking distance (quarter to one mile) of resi-dences. Such destinations should link pedestrians with basic public facilities and services such as markets, health clinics, jobs, public transit stops, schools, worshipping places and recreational areas.

However, Pedestrian connectivity is closely related to safety, and hence many of the elements that improve pedestrian safety (such as sidewalks, pedestrian crossings and other pedestrian paths) also improve connectivity (Southworth, 2005; Matchett, 2010). To achieve connectivity to various destina-tions means

a pedestrian network must be designed at the same time as the road network and with the same priority.

Block size

The most important element of streets to promote walkability is the block length (McNally, 2010).

Small block size (especially in the high density designed areas) plays a large role in making a com-munity walkable as they allow for more direct routes and provide a larger number of potential route options than larger disconnected blocks (Southworth, 2005; Giles-Corti et al, 2009). Shorter blocks reduce travel speeds, increase safety of pedestrians and break up the street into more manageable and

51

enjoyable portions. Longer blocks can create monotony and boredom. To promote walkability, block lengths ranging between 300 and 400 feet are highly recommended (Ewing, 1999). Blocks lengths ranging between 500 and 600 feet should provide mid-block crossings with connected pass-throughs on every block (Ibid). If implemented, shorter block lengths can increase accessibility for pedestrians and crossings opportunities; can provide more direct routes for pedestrians; can limit the time auto-mobiles have to accelerate after intersections, and also tend to disperse traffic, resulting in fewer roads that are heavily congested by automobiles. A study by Tira and Daudén (2010) adds that both young and adult pedestrians seem to prefer more small blocks and small buildings in a block, than long con-tinuous façades. According to these authors, older people feel comfortable and secure when a contin-uous built façade can help prevent unexpected attacks from “coming from around the corner” (ibid).

Gridiron pattern streets

The gridiron pattern refers to a simple street design system where two sets of parallel streets cross at right angles to form square or rectangular blocks. Gridiron pattern streets are theoretically capable of increasing walking trips in a particular neighbourhood. This is due to the fact that the gridiron patterns have a large number of intersecting streets, thereby reducing the distance between trip origin and des-tination. Nevertheless, gridiron patterns also provide for a large number of alternative trip routes, al-lowing pedestrians to vary their routes for variety, safety, and convenience (Southworth and Owens 1993; Frank 1999). In contrast to grids, hierarchical, curvilinear street networks, loop system or cul-de-sacs are lower in connectivity. These networks are characterized by a low number of blocks and intersections per unit of area. Theoretically, they discourage walking and by increasing trip length and decreasing both route and modal choice (ibid). Therefore, when implemented, the gridiron pattern system can lead to a more resilient system as they create shorter travel distances and more route op-tions; and can act as a solution for the congested streets in especially low income countries. This is because a gridiron pattern, with its frequent intersections, may reduce the proportion of trips made by car, thereby encouraging walking and cycling due to the directness of routes that it offers to pedestri-ans (UN-Habitat, 2013b).

Accessibility

Accessibility refers to the ease of getting to destinations by all the user groups, including those with impaired mobility. To create a walkable place, people of all ages and ability must be able to access businesses and activities along the street with ease, that is, easy to find and easy to get to) (Jacobs 1993). Accessibility allows people to reach the desired destinations, goods and services (Montgomery and Roberts, 2008). This implies that an accessible walking environment can provide mobility for people of all ages and ability, thereby simplifying transport between common origins and destinations and can also make appropriate use of the built environment. Montgomery and Roberts (2008: 9) and Roberts et al., (2006) argue that “an accessible pedestrian network should be inclusive (or universal) and connect all types of users (women, children, and disabled) to all modes of transport, especially public transit”. Design with accessibility in mind can provide pedestrians with the widest opportunity to participate in society by giving them modal choice, as they are enabled to make efficient, uninter-rupted, non-circuitous trips by focusing on the continuity of the pedestrian network.

However, many countries all over the world are focusing on improving the pedestrian accessibility in urban areas. Montgomery and Roberts (2008) point out that several European cities have given much attention to improving pedestrian access and mobility. For instance, the United Kingdom, through the Department for Transport promotes the concept of “accessibility planning” as an avenue to bolster social inclusion (UK Department for Transport, 2006) as cited in (Montgomery and Roberts, 2008).

Similarly for developing countries, various cities and governments like Kenya and Tanzania have be-gun to place priority on mobility and accessibility planning for pedestrians (Wilson, 2002 cited in Montgomery and Roberts, 2008). According to Wilson, the Kenyan and Tanzanian Non-Motorized

52

Transport Program emphasizes “mobility planning” with its primary goal being to “improve mobility and accessibility at a lower overall cost, catering to non-motorized traffic” so as to balance the needs of motorized and non-motorized traffic and hence meeting the needs of all sections of the population.

Apart from inclusion, indicator for measuring accessibility of a particular neighbourhood is the aver-age walking time per trip, that is, proximity of urban function (Montgomery and Roberts, 2008). Stud-ies (Southworth, 2005; Burton and Mitchell, 2006; Funihashi 1985; Handy 1996; Komanoff and Roe-lofs 1993; Perry, 1929) indicate that distance to destinations is the single factor that most affects whether or not people decide to walk or to take a car, and is more of a determinant than weather, physical difficulty, safety or fear of crime. Burton and Mitchell (2006) add that features of the outdoor built environment should be designed with the average healthy young adult in mind. Burton and Mitchell (2006) and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) (2001) point out that the UK government had stated that 10 minutes is a comfortable walking time to reach services and facilities and this is the time it takes to walkabout 800 metres.

Similarly, Tira and Daudén (2010) argue that a walkable neighbourhood public facilities and services are designed in such a way that one can reach most local-serving uses on foot within 10 to 20 minutes or ¼ to ½ mile (i.e. 400m to 800m respectively). The types of activities that fall within this “neigh-borhood access” category include shops, cafes, banks, laundries, grocery stores, day care centers, fit-ness centers, elementary schools, libraries, and parks. Maurizio further argues that the density around public transport stations should be increased when planning the networks, thereby generating a capital gain for developers through an increase in land value and using part of the capital gain to develop bet-ter services and pedestrian facilities.

Moreover, a study by Burton and Mitchell (2006:98) highlights that older people need to live no fur-ther than 125 metres from a telephone and post box, and no furfur-ther than 500 metres from essential services and facilities such as a general food store, post office, bank, general practitioner’s (GP) sur-gery or health centre, green space (such as village green, green street edges), public toilets, seating and a bus stop. They further argue that in-case it happens that secondary services and facilities like a park or other form of open space, library, dentist, optician, places of worship, and community and leisure facilities, cannot also be located within 500 metres should be not further than 800 metres, again with public toilets and seating (ibid). The entrances to these services and facilities should be obvious and easy for older people to recognize. They should be at ground level wherever possible with flush thresholds. Moreover, public seating should ideally be positioned every 100 metres to 125 metres (ibid). Generally, locating the primary and secondary facilities and services within 500 metres and 800 metres respectively gives people a chance to walk a little further away from the motorised traffic travelling alongside on the road.

The non-location of public facilities and services in proximity locations can lead to increased substan-tial travel time to pedestrian journeys, thereby depleting the only resources the poor residents have, that both time and energy the poor have are depleted. For instance, a study by Pendakur (2005) in Morogoro, Tanzania revealed that 49% of walkers spend between 30 and 75 minutes on average per walking trip. This means the time and energy walkers had to spend on productive activities of a day, were depleted.

53 Source: Adapted from Burton and Mitchell, 2006:99

Figure 3 .1: Primary and secondary services located within 500 and 800 metres Linking pedestrian routes with public transit stops

A walkable city links pedestrian routes with the public transit stops so as to have a complete pedestri-an network that offers full connectivity to all modes of trpedestri-ansport, thereby enabling people to navigate from foot to another mode of transport. This is because every transit passenger is a pedestrian for at least a short distance before boarding and after departing the bus or train. Following this fact, transit facilities need to be situated adjacent to work, residential areas, shopping, and recreational facilities to encourage pedestrian trips (Southworth, 2005). Southworth further argues that it is important to pro-vide accessible links to other modes such as bus, streetcar, subway, or train within a reasonable time-distance because every day many people depend on public transit as their main means of transport to get into the workplace, shopping, recreation, and schools. According to Southworth, transit stations need to be spaced frequently enough in the areas of supporting densities to allow pedestrian access for residential and commercial zones, usually ¼ to ½ mile, or a 10 to 20 minute walk (ibid). To ensure safety of pedestrians at the public transit stops, crosswalks should be placed as close to bus stops or station entrances as possible, for pedestrian convenience and to discourage passengers from jaywalk-ing.

Studies by Frank et al., (2003) and Ewing et al., (2011) point out that public transit facility as part of a street network can facilitate walking. This is due to the fact that a transit user is generally required to walk on at least one end of the trip. Therefore, urban planners, designers and other actors involved in implementing land use and transport related programs need to ensure that public streets, public transit stops and public buildings are accessible by people of all ages and ability including wheelchair users, mobility impaired and visually impaired pedestrians. When streets are multi-modal (i.e. when they accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, and transit in addition to automobiles), they provide the greatest

54

amount of flexibility in route and trip planning for the pedestrian (Institute of Transportation Engi-neers, 2010).

Nevertheless, efficient and convenient public transport can improve urban mobility and enhance pe-destrian safety. For instance, Bogota, the capital of Columbia, in the period of 1995-2001, developed a high capacity bus system at a cost of US$ 300 million that carries about 700 people a day. The bus system together with other measures taken, contributed to reducing the number of road traffic fatali-ties from 1387 in 1995 to 697 in 2002 and also improved access to jobs and created a more livable urban environment (WHO, 2009: 17). Similarly, Lagos, Nigeria, the six largest cities in the world with population of 17 million people, for years the city has grown rapidly and had no reliable public transport. In 2002, the state government created an agency called the Lagos Metropolitan Transport Authority (LAMATA) with the mission to “Transform the state transport system by facilitating an enabling environment”. As cited in WHO (2009), Mobereola (2006) reports that LAMATA in col-laboration with the state, developed a Bus Rapid Transit system that was completed and launched in March 2009. This transport system provided Lagos with a clean, affordable, reliable and safe means of getting around the city that encourage public transport as an alternative to car transport (ibid).

Pedestrian-oriented design elements

Pedestrian-oriented urban design elements, specifically street width, building height-width ratio, and site design are among the essentials that contributor to walkable cities (Frank et al., 2003). These ele-ments can be operationalized both at the street and site levels to create a comfortable environment for pedestrian travel. These pedestrian oriented urban design elements are likely to influence pedestrians’

perception of the built environment, and ultimately their decisions to walk for transport. The next sec-tion provides a brief discussion on each of the pedestrian oriented urban design elements identified.

- Wider Streets/ inclusive streets

Streets as public spaces are assets for urban dwellers livelihoods and city development in general. The Streets are usually regarded as mere links in a road network, enabling travel between two or more des-tinations. Streets connect space, people and goods; and thus, the planning and design of streets need to accommodate the needs of all users, that is, age-groups, gender, economic status and modal means (UN-HABITAT, 2013b). A good street pattern boosts infrastructure development, enhances environ-mental sustainability, supports higher productivity, enriches quality of life, and promotes equity and social inclusion (ibid). Despite the roles played by streets, yet streets and the notion of public space are often overlooked, especially developing countries cities where the multiple functions of streets are

Streets as public spaces are assets for urban dwellers livelihoods and city development in general. The Streets are usually regarded as mere links in a road network, enabling travel between two or more des-tinations. Streets connect space, people and goods; and thus, the planning and design of streets need to accommodate the needs of all users, that is, age-groups, gender, economic status and modal means (UN-HABITAT, 2013b). A good street pattern boosts infrastructure development, enhances environ-mental sustainability, supports higher productivity, enriches quality of life, and promotes equity and social inclusion (ibid). Despite the roles played by streets, yet streets and the notion of public space are often overlooked, especially developing countries cities where the multiple functions of streets are