Walkability Optimization: Formulations, Algorithms, and a Case Study of Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of walkable urban development has gained increased attention due to its public health, economic, and environmental sustainability benefits. Unfortunately, land zoning and historic under-investment have resulted in spatial inequality in walkability and social inequality among residents. We tackle the problem of Walkability Optimization through the lens of combinatorial optimization. The task is to select locations in which additional amenities (e.g., grocery stores, schools, restaurants) can be allocated to improve resident access via walking while taking into account existing amenities and providing multiple options (e.g., for restaurants). To this end, we derive Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) and Constraint Programming (CP) models. Moreover, we show that the problem’s objective function is submodular in special cases, which motivates an efficient greedy heuristic. We conduct a case study on 31 underserved neighborhoods in the City of Toronto, Canada. MILP finds the best solutions in most scenarios but does not scale well with network size. The greedy algorithm scales well and finds near-optimal solutions. Our empirical evaluation shows that neighbourhoods with low walkability have a great potential for transformation into pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods by strategically placing new amenities. Allocating 3 additional grocery stores, schools, and restaurants can improve the “WalkScore” by more than 50 points (on a scale of 100) for 4 neighbourhoods and reduce the walking distances to amenities for 75% of all residential locations to 10 minutes for all amenity types. Our code and paper appendix are available at https://github.com/khalil-research/walkability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".