| Literature DB >> 30769775 |
Muhammad Tauhidur Rahman1, Kh Md Nahiduzzaman2.
Abstract
Rapid urban expansion and population growth in Saudi cities over the past four decades have increased vehicular accidents and traffic congestion and have impacted the daily walking conditions of the residents. Walking has various health and environmental benefits. In North American and European countries, three factors have been found to motivate a resident to walk within their community: their accessibility to community social and business facilities, their perception and willingness, and the safety conditions of the roads and sidewalks within their community for walking. This study examined these factors and their role in the walking habits of the residents in the neighborhoods of Doha and Dana districts in Saudi Arabia's eastern city of Dhahran. Data were collected through field observations and by randomly sampling and interviewing 200 residents. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and SPSS statistical software were used for data analysis. The results show that most of the community facilities are randomly placed in the districts. Mosques are the closest facility to each resident with an average accessibility distance of 242m. Almost 43% of the respondents prefer daily walking while the rest are hesitant due to hot weather during summer and narrow and poorly designed sidewalks. The sidewalks were also found to be blocked by trees, street signals, and illegally parked vehicles. Future studies should explore the accessibility to facilities, willingness, climate, and health conditions of the residents, and the road and sidewalk conditions for walking in other cities of the Kingdom.Entities:
Keywords: accessibility; built environment; road conditions; safety; walkability; willingness and perception
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30769775 PMCID: PMC6406772 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16040545
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study Area in the City of Dhahran.
The community facilities considered in the study and their distribution pattern based on the NNI values.
| Type of Facility | Number of Facility | Observed Mean Distance (m) | Mean Random Distance (m) | NNI | Distribution Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laundries | 9 | 39.17 | 493.72 | 0.08 | Clustered |
| Misc. Commercial Facilities | 71 | 30.97 | 175.78 | 0.18 | Clustered |
| Coffee Shops & Restaurants | 38 | 57.37 | 240.28 | 0.24 | Clustered |
| Supermarket & Grocery Stores | 10 | 228.10 | 468.39 | 0.49 | Random |
| Pharmacies | 5 | 362.82 | 662.40 | 0.55 | Random |
| Banks & ATMs | 14 | 221.50 | 395.86 | 0.56 | Random |
| Hair Salons | 8 | 294.26 | 523.67 | 0.56 | Random |
| Schools | 13 | 315.56 | 410.80 | 0.77 | Random |
| Gas Stations | 5 | 771.56 | 662.40 | 1.16 | Dispersed |
| Mosques | 27 | 357.15 | 285.05 | 1.25 | Dispersed |
The ideal parameters (threshold distance and the minimum number of facility per hotspot) considered for hotspot analysis.
| Type of Facility | Threshold Distance (m) | Minimum Number of Facility per Hotspot | Number of Hotspots Produced | Number of Facilities per Hotspot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coffee Shops & Restaurants | 500 | 5 | 3 | 8, 5, and 10 |
| Laundries | 1000 | 5 | 1 | 7 |
| Miscellaneous Commercial Facilities | 1000 | 5 | 2 | 7 and 50 |
Figure 2Hotspots of coffee shops and restaurants (a), laundry facilities (b), and miscellaneous commercial facilities (c).
Statistics about the distances between the residential parcels and the nearest facility.
| Type of Facility | Statistics of Distances (in meters) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard Deviation | |
| Mosques | 3 | 1153 | 242 | 140 |
| Schools | 5 | 1333 | 430 | 240 |
| Miscellaneous Commercial Facilities | 2 | 1832 | 576 | 383 |
| Banks & ATMs | 3 | 1862 | 590 | 368 |
| Coffee Shops & Restaurants | 7 | 1830 | 596 | 380 |
| Supermarket & Grocery Stores | 4 | 1807 | 649 | 356 |
| Hair Salons | 8 | 1932 | 663 | 378 |
| Laundries | 6 | 1956 | 670 | 383 |
| Gas Stations | 18 | 2206 | 807 | 458 |
| Pharmacies | 5 | 2431 | 963 | 607 |
Figure 3Distances in meters between the residential parcels and their nearest mosque, school, bank and ATM machine, coffee shop and restaurant, supermarket and grocery store, and salon.
Figure 4Distances in meters between the residential parcels and their nearest laundry, gas station, and pharmacy.
Distribution of the percentage of sampled residents (stratified by gender and age) who are required to fulfill the daily basic necessary needs.
| Basic Needs Classification | Gender | Age in Years | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | <20 | 21-30 | 31-40 | 41-50 | 51-60 | >60 | |
| Grocery | 83.33 | 69.35 | 82.1 | 90.8 | 84.0 | 70.0 | 11.1 | 30.0 |
| Recreation | 71.01 | 38.71 | 60.7 | 78.6 | 64.0 | 36.7 | 0.0 | 10.0 |
| Banking | 31.16 | 11.29 | 17.9 | 26.5 | 44.0 | 23.3 | 0.0 | 10.0 |
| School & Employment | 40.58 | 22.58 | 53.6 | 37.8 | 24.0 | 30.0 | 11.1 | 20.0 |
| Others | 43.48 | 27.42 | 42.9 | 36.7 | 32.0 | 43.3 | 22.2 | 60.0 |
Mode of transportation to fulfill the basic necessary needs.
| Basic Needs Classification | Mode of Transport (Percentage of Total Sampled Respondents) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private Vehicle | Public Transport | Biking | Walking | |
| Grocery | 95.5 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 59.1 |
| Recreation | 94.1 | 0 | 11.8 | 64.7 |
| Banking | 100 | 0 | 0 | 57.1 |
| School & Employment | 88.9 | 11.1 | 11.1 | 66.7 |
Gender wise distribution of the percentage of total respondents and their reasons for not willing to walk.
| Reason for not Willing to Walk | Gender | |
|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | |
| Hot and humid weather | 36.3 | 32.4 |
| Poorly designed sidewalk | 15.6 | 8.7 |
| Sidewalk is discontinuous | 14.2 | 20.2 |
| Unsafe road crossing | 15.9 | 16.8 |
| Design not suitable for walking | 8.4 | 0 |
| Narrow sidewalk | 0 | 12.7 |
| Sidewalk occupied by other establishments | 9.5 | 9.2 |
Figure 5Streets with walking trails within the two residential neighborhood districts.