MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040787799 · doi:10.1177/2399808320946050

Evaluating pedestrian perceptions of street design with a 3D stated preference survey

2020· article· en· W3040787799 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dena Kasraian, Sneha Adhikari, David Kossowsky, Michael Luubert, G. Brent Hall, Jason Hawkins, Khandker Nurul Habib, Matthew J. Roorda

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsEsri (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoOntario Research Foundation
KeywordsPedestrianWalkabilityMultinomial logistic regressionTransport engineeringPreferencePerceptionMixed logitComputer scienceCommunity designRevealed preferenceSample (material)Discrete choiceGeographyBuilt environmentEngineeringPsychologyEconometricsEconomicsLogistic regressionStatisticsCivil engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many places, streets are still primarily designed for the convenience of motorists, considering mobility function as the principal design goal. There is a scarcity of empirical evidence on the relationship between the design of a street and how it is experienced by pedestrians who use it. This work focuses on quantifying pedestrians’ perception of walkability through a stated preference survey using a dynamic 3D representation of various street designs in Toronto, Canada. The stated preference scenarios are generated through a rule-based 3D environment (Esri’s CityEngine) and animated using a gaming engine (Unity). A random sample of 600 Torontonians is used for the empirical investigation by estimating a mixed multinomial logit model. The results indicate that there is a high preference for (i) streets that include transit lanes as opposed to car-exclusive lanes, (ii) the presence of trees on the sidewalk, and (iii) two-way cycle paths on the curb lane. Furthermore, pedestrians are willing to trade sidewalk width for the presence of trees and outdoor dining. The survey’s innovative presentation mode and its findings can contribute to the development of much-needed evidence-based design tools to assess the trade-offs required between the many possible uses of roadway space, while focusing on the overlooked role of the pedestrian experience.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.136 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City ScienceSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207