Pertanika Journal of Science & Technology
Pertanika Journal Home Facebook
Pertanika · Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

Pertanika Journal of Science & Technology

Official journal of Universiti Putra Malaysia for scholarly work across science, engineering and related technologies.

e-ISSN 2231-8526 ISSN 0128-7680
Browse latest issue Author guidelines Submit Here
Research article

The Built Environment and its Impact on Transit based Transportation Users Walking Activity in Semarang, Indonesia

Anita Ratnasari Rakhmatulloh, Diah Intan Kusumo Dewi and Dinar Mutiara Kusumo Nugraheni

Volume 29, Issue 2 April 2021 Published 30 April 2021
https://doi.org/10.47836/pjst.29.2.05
KeywordsBuilt environment, pedestrian walkways, transit-based transportation
Article content

Abstract

The increase in mobility rate due to the current rise in population has become a challenge in urban development. This led to the development of pedestrian walkways, which are integrated with transit-based transportation, to minimize problems due to the high level of mobility of the urban population. According to some experts, environmental conditions are one of the main factors capable of affecting pedestrians' frequency. Therefore, this study explores the effect of the built environment, such as density, diversity, and design, on the pedestrian frequency of the Bus Trans Semarang passengers. Data were collected from 9 corridors, consisting of 447 bus stops, directly connected to the pedestrian walkways, as one of the feeders for transit-based transportation facilities. The analysis method used for each variable was the formulation technique, with data simulated using various applications, such as ArcGIS. The linear regression partial t-test model was also analyzed using SPSS, with the effect of pedestrian frequency on dependent variables determined, using the built environment elements (independent variable). The results showed a positive significance between the diversity variable and pedestrians' frequency along the Bus Trans Semarang corridors. Furthermore, the land that varies with the dominance of commercial and educational area has the highest attraction features that affect a person's frequency to walk.
Supporting literature

References

  1. Blanco, H., & Alberti, M. (2009). Hot, congested, crowded and diverse: emerging research agendas in planning. Progress in Planning, 71(4), 153-205. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2009.03.001
  2. Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199-219. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6
  3. Chalermpong, S. (2007). Rail transit and residential land use in developing countries: Hedonic study of residential property prices in Bangkok, Thailand. Transportation Research Record, 2038(1), 111-119. https: //doi.org/10.3141/2038-15
  4. Dixon, L. B. (1996). Bicycle and pedestrian level-of-service performance measures and standards for congestion management systems. Transportation Research Record, 1538(1), 1-9. https: //doi.org/10.1177/0361198196153800101
  5. Duduta, N. (2013). Direct ridership models of bus rapid transit and metro systems in Mexico City. Transportation Research Board, 2394(1), 93-99. https: //doi.org/10.3141/2394-12
  6. Fee, K., & Hartley, D. (2011). Urban growth and decline: The role of population density at the city core. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
  7. Hu, J. H., Zhan, C. Z., Cheng, Z. F., & Wang, B. (2013). A research of pedestrian evacuation simulation for BRT station based on fine grid method. Procedia Engineering, 52, 137-144. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.02.118
  8. ITDP. (2017). The BRT standard 2016. Institute for Transportation & Development Policy Indonesia.
  9. Kim, C., Parent, O., & Hofe, R. V. (2018). The role of peer effects and the built environment on individual travel behavior. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(3), 452-469. https: //doi.org/10.1177/2399808317740354
  10. Makarova, I., Pashkevich, A., Shubenkova, K., & Mukhametdinov, E. (2017). Ways to increase population mobility through the transition to sustainable transport. Procedia Engineering, 187, 756-762. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.434
  11. Miranda-Morenoa, L. F., Morency, P., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2011). The link between built environment, pedestrian activity and pedestrian–vehicle collision occurrence at signalized intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(5), 1624-1634. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.02.005
  12. Monteiro, F. B., & Campos, V. B. G. (2012). A proposal of indicators for evaluation of the urban space for pedestrians and cyclists in access to mass transit station. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 54, 637-645. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.781
  13. Munshi, T. (2016). Built environment and mode choice relationship for commute travel in the city of Rajkot, India. Transportation Research Part D, 44, 239-253. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.12.005
  14. Oktaviani, I., Dewi, D. I. K., & Rakhmatulloh, A. R. (2020). Can building density influence the amount of BRT trans Semarang ridership? In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 409, No. 1, p. 012038). IOP Publishing. https: //doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/409/1/012038
  15. Özbil, A., Yeşiltepe, D., & Argin, G. (2015). Modeling walkability: The effects of street design, street-network configuration and land-use on pedestrian movement. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 12(3), 189-207.
  16. Patankar, V. M., Kumar, R., & Tiwar, G. (2007). Impacts of bus rapid transit lanes on traffic and commuter mobility. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 133(2), 99-106. https: //doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2007)133:2(99)
  17. Purwanto, E., & Manullang, O. R. (2018). Evaluasi trotoar sebagai feeder non motorized untuk mendukung bus rapid transit (BRT) di Kota Semarang [Evaluation of sidewalk as a non motorized feeder to support bus rapid transit (BRT) in Semarang City ]. Jurnal Pembangunan Wilayah dan Kota, 14(1), 17-27. https: //doi.org/10.14710/pwk.v14i1.17336
  18. SuaraMerdeka. (2015, October 09). Trans Semarang jadi percontohan [Trans Semarang Becomes Pilot ]. Suara Merdeka. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from https: //www.suaramerdeka.com/
  19. Sung, H., Go, D., & Choi, C. G. (2013). Evidence of Jacobs’s street life in the great Seoul city: Identifying the association of physical environment with walking activity on streets. Cities, 35, 164-173. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.07.010
  20. Timmermans, H. (Ed.). (2009). Pedestrian behaviour: Models, data collection and application. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  21. Townsend, C., & Zacharias, J. (2010). Built environment and pedestrian behavior at rail rapid transit stations in Bangkok. Transportation, 37(2), 317-330. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11116-009-9226-8
  22. Untermann, R. K., & Lynn, L. (1984). Accommodating the pedestrian: Adapting towns and neighborhoods for walking and bicycling. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  23. Yang, C., & Yao, M. (2019). Ultra-high intensity redevelopment of the core area of Japanese rail transit hub station. International Journal of Sustainability and Planning, 14(3), 245-259. https: //doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V14-N3-245-259
  24. Zhang, Y., Ding, C., & Huang, L. (2016). the built environment and the frequency of cycling trips by Urban elderly: Insights from Zhongshan, China. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 15(3), 511-518. http: //doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.15.511
  25. Zhao, C., Nielsen, T. A. S., Olafsson, A. S., Carstensen, T. A., & Meng, X. (2018). Urban form, demographic and socio-economic correlates of walking, cycling, and e-biking: Evidence from eight neighborhoods in Beijing. Transport Policy, 64, 102-112. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.01.018
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .