4.6 Article

Shared Space and Pedestrian Safety: Empirical Evidence from Pedestrian Priority Street Projects in Seoul, Korea

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 11, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11174645

Keywords

Pedestrian Priority Street; shared space; paving design; pedestrian safety; walking environment

Funding

  1. Chung-Ang University Graduate Research Scholarship in 2018
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIT) [NRF-2018R1C1B6008235]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To provide safe and comfortable walking environments on narrow streets without sidewalks, the Seoul city government has implemented the Pedestrian Priority Street (PPS) projects. Based on Monderman's shared space concept, the PPS involves applying diverse paving design techniques, particularly stamped asphalt pavement of various colors and patterns. This study investigated the effectiveness of the PPS for pedestrian safety. Data sources were (1) video recordings of the nine concurrent PPS in 2014 before and after the projects were completed and (2) a cross-sectional survey at the nine streets. Two groups of multiple regression models analyzed the objective safety, by using the variables, mean vehicle speed and change in mean speed, which were then compared with subjective safety through a questionnaire analysis. The results found that the design strategies reduced the vehicle speed and increased perceptions of pedestrian safety. These suggest that the PPS principles are practical and feasible ways to tackle the safety problems of narrow streets without sidewalks. Further, vehicle speeds increased on streets where the pedestrian zone was clearly distinguishable from the vehicular zone by applying PPS techniques only at the roadside. Thus, clearly separating pedestrians from vehicular zones, which is neither the original principle nor the intent of the PPS, should be avoided.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available