| Literature DB >> 33227930 |
Carmen Llinares1, Juan Luis Higuera-Trujillo1,2, Antoni Montañana1, Nuria Castilla3.
Abstract
The effect that the physical characteristics of urban design have on the pedestrian's perceptions of safety is a fundamental aspect of city planning. This is particularly so with street crossings, where the pedestrian has to make a decision. This paper analyses how pedestrians are affected by number of traffic lanes, lighting colour temperature, and nearby vegetation as they cross roads. Perceptions of safety were quantified by means of the psychological and neurophysiological responses of 60 participants to 16 virtual reality scenarios (4 day and 12 night), based on existing urban design variables. The results showed differences between night-time and daytime scenarios, which suggests that there is a need to analyse both situations. As to the design guidelines, it was observed that safety is improved by reducing the number of traffic lanes and nearby vegetation, and by using a lighting colour temperature of 4500 K. However, the analysis of the variables showed that combined effects produce different results to those obtained from the analysis of individual elements. This result is essential information for urban managers in their assessments of whether particular interventions will improve crossing points.Entities:
Keywords: neuro-architecture; pedestrian evaluation; urban design; virtual reality
Year: 2020 PMID: 33227930 PMCID: PMC7699239 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1General testing sequence.
Figure 2Comparison of the physical scenario (left) and its virtual replica (right; parameterization of urban design variable (PUDV) # B).
Figure 3Configurations of the environmental simulations of the PUDVs.
Statistical treatments.
| Analysis and | Statistical | Expected |
|---|---|---|
| ANALYSIS A | Descriptive analysis of means. | Sufficient level of presence. |
| ANALYSIS B | Statistical techniques comparison metrics related to the perception safety with non-normal distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test, | Significant differences in the metrics related to perceptions of safety, between the PUDV of each variable. |
| ANALYSIS C | Statistical techniques comparison metrics related to the perception safety with non-normal distribution (K-S test, | Significant differences in the metrics related to perceptions of safety, between the PUDV of each variable, for given age profiles. |
| Mann –Whitney U, for the PUDV of each variable, between gender profiles | Significant differences in the metrics related to perceptions of safety, between the PUDV of each variable, for given gender profiles. | |
| ANALYSIS D | Statistical techniques comparison metrics related to the perception safety with non-normal distribution (K-S test, | Significant differences in the metrics related to perceptions of safety, between day and night PUDVs. |
| ANALYSIS E | Statistical techniques comparison metrics related to the perception safety with non-normal distribution (K-S test, | Design guidelines for urban interventions that use the design variables studied. |
Figure 4Average level at 95% confidence interval for presence mean in each PUDV simulation.
Mann–Whitney U tests for the differences in the mean ranks of psychological and neurophysiological metrics between 1–2 traffic lanes (significance level p < 0.05).
| Urban Design Variables | Psychological Metrics | Neurophysiological Metrics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominance | F4-Gamma | C3-Highbeta | ||||
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| |
| Traffic lanes | ||||||
| 1 | 190.86 | 0.028 | 94.81 | 0.073 | 91.42 | 0.010 |
| 2 | 166.95 | 109.61 | 112.75 | |||
| Traffic lanes–Daytime | ||||||
| 1 | 68.30 | 0.002 | 22.07 | 0.000 | 27.64 | 0.006 |
| 2 | 49.06 | 44.45 | 40.74 | |||
| Traffic lanes–Night-time | ||||||
| 1 | 124.66 | 0.478 | 66.59 | 0.779 | 57.10 | 0.001 |
| 2 | 118.28 | 68.50 | 78.88 | |||
Kruskal-Wallis test for the differences in the mean ranks of the psychological and neurophysiological metrics colour temperature and lighting (significance level p < 0.05).
| Urban Design Variables | Psychological Metrics | Neurophysiological Metrics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominance | F4-Gamma | C3-Highbeta | ||||
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| |
| Colour temperature | ||||||
| 2800 K | 99.03 | 0.000 | 63.42 | 0.631 | 66.50 | 0.970 |
| 4500 K | 144.60 | 68.40 | 67.60 | |||
| 10,500 K | 122.61 | 70.98 | 68.46 | |||
Mann–Whitney U tests for the differences in the mean ranks of the psychological and neurophysiological metrics in the absence and presence of vegetation (significance level p < 0.05).
| Urban Design Variables | Psychological Metrics | Neurophysiological Metrics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominance | F4-Gamma | C3-Highbeta | ||||
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| |
| Vegetation | ||||||
| No | 180.15 | 0.773 | 100.97 | 0.721 | 109.50 | 0.103 |
| Yes | 179.99 | 103.92 | 96.03 | |||
| Vegetation–Daytime | ||||||
| No | 70.72 | 0.000 | 32.00 | 0.283 | 29.83 | 0.082 |
| Yes | 48.56 | 37.33 | 38.46 | |||
| Vegetation–Night-time | ||||||
| No | 115.82 | 0.196 | 65.50 | 0.508 | 71.45 | 0.191 |
| Yes | 127.47 | 69.97 | 62.63 | |||
Kruskal-Wallis test for the differences in the mean ranks of the psychological and neurophysiological metrics based on the age of the participants (significance level p < 0.05).
| Characteristics of the Participants | Psychological Metrics | Neurophysiological Metrics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominance | F4-Gamma | C3-Highbeta | ||||
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| |
| Age | ||||||
| <25 | 212.76 | 0.000 | 120.96 | 0.191 | 118.10 | 0.006 |
| 26–35 | 163.20 | 98.82 | 103.55 | |||
| 36–45 | 263.03 | 97.39 | 160.50 | |||
| 46–65 | 292.50 | 129.25 | 54.75 | |||
| 56–65 | 230.36 | 141.36 | 118.21 | |||
| >65 | 166.33 | 122.00 | 119.00 | |||
| Age–Daytime | ||||||
| <25 | 69.11 | 0.276 | 43.28 | 0.573 | 43.11 | 0.369 |
| 26–35 | 55.39 | 42.38 | 35.38 | |||
| 36–45 | 56.20 | 33.83 | 51.83 | |||
| 46–65 | 78.50 | 34.00 | 31.00 | |||
| 56–65 | 93.50 | 27.00 | 26.00 | |||
| >65 | 72.30 | 31.00 | 38.00 | |||
| Age–Night-time | ||||||
| <25 | 143.67 | 0.000 | 79.72 | 0.017 | 77.46 | 0.021 |
| 26–35 | 113.39 | 55.64 | 62.79 | |||
| 36–45 | 193.65 | 63.17 | 105.50 | |||
| 46–65 | 209.50 | 98.50 | 28.50 | |||
| 56–65 | 146.50 | 106.30 | 83.10 | |||
| >65 | 82.07 | 85.00 | 86.00 | |||
Mann–Whitney U tests for the differences in the mean ranks of the psychological and neurophysiological metrics based on the participant’s gender (significance level p < 0.05).
| Participant’s Gender | Psychological Metrics | Neurophysiological Metrics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominance | F4-Gamma | C3-Highbeta | ||||
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| |
| Gender | ||||||
| Men | 194.72 | 0.001 | 97.56 | 0.269 | 102.07 | 0.924 |
| Women | 159.08 | 106.72 | 102.86 | |||
| Gender–Daytime | ||||||
| Men | 59.62 | 0.422 | 31.11 | 0.055 | 31.89 | 0.114 |
| Women | 54.58 | 40.15 | 39.32 | |||
| Gender–Night-time | ||||||
| Men | 135.16 | 0.001 | 68.05 | 0.886 | 69.98 | 0.518 |
| Women | 106.17 | 67.08 | 65.64 | |||
Mann–Whitney U tests for the differences in the mean ranks of the psychological and neurophysiological metrics in daytime and night-time scenarios (significance level p < 0.05).
| Urban Design Variables | Psychological Metrics | Neurophysiological Metrics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominance | F4-Gamma | C3-Highbeta | ||||
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| |
| Daytime–Night-time | ||||||
| Daytime | 177.55 | 0.905 | 91.27 | 0.049 | 71.56 | 0.000 |
| Night-time | 178.98 | 108.37 | 118.66 | |||
Kruskal-Wallis test for the differences in the mean ranks of the psychological and neurophysiological metrics in daytime scenarios.
| Daytime Scenarios | Psychological Metrics | Neurophysiological Metrics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominance | F4-Gamma | C3-Highbeta | ||||
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| Mean Rank |
| |
| Intervention | ||||||
| A | 59.93 | 0.000 | 23.06 | 0.000 | 32.17 | 0.013 |
| B | 40.60 | 46.50 | 42.50 | |||
| C | 78.95 | 20.30 | 19.50 | |||
| D | 63.17 | 40.36 | 37.21 | |||
Figure 5Effect on the metrics of the possible interventions for each of the daytime scenarios.
Figure 6Effect on the metrics of colour temperature modifications for each scenario.