||Using Stated Preference Methods to Evaluate Road Users’ Perceptions of Shared Space Scenarios
||Department of Urban Planning
discrete choice model
multinomial logit (MNL) model
nested logit (NL) model
stated preference survey
共享空間（Shared Space）結合了交通與開放空間領域，有別於傳統的街道設計，透過降低車輛的主導地位，增進行人的移動力與舒適性，即在一道路或空間下不具有交通號誌及車輛分隔線、不限制車輛種類及車輛方向性，在此概念下，混合車流包含了機動車輛、非機動車輛及行人，其概念在歐洲逐漸廣泛地被接受，成為都市設計的原則之一。儘管共享空間對於西方社會來說為新的設計方法，然而空間內存在混合車流在台灣早已出現已久。緣此，本研究目的係透過調查道路使用者的感知，以了解適合台灣之共享空間設計。經由文獻回顧整理出影響使用者感知之八項因子，分別為土地使用、密度、道路型態、行人專用設施、鋪面、植栽、照明及交通管理設施，將上述因子模擬不同情境，以圖片結合陳述性偏好（Stated Preference Survey）的方式進行問卷調查，並應用多項羅吉特模型（Multinomial Logit, MNL）和巢式羅吉特模型（Nested Logit, NL）比較分析道路使用者對於選擇行為之偏好。結果顯示，無論何種道路使用者對於車輛密度皆較為敏感。在較高的行人密度、攤販、騎樓、較窄的路寬、鋪磚路面、停車位置、交通號誌及植栽所存在的環境能提升行人願意步行通過或進行社交活動的意願；而較高的行人和車輛密度、攤販、騎樓、較窄的路寬、鋪磚路面、停車位置及交通號誌所存在的環境將促使駕駛提升其警覺心。其結果將作為共享空間設計原則之參考。
The concept of shared space has been gradually becoming a widely accepted urban design principle in Europe. It is an approach intended to reconcile the traffic in public realms and to improve the comfort of pedestrians by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles. With this concept, it would be not uncommon to see different types of road users mixed in traffic, including vulnerable users such as pedestrians and two wheelers. Understanding the perception of users in shared spaces is the key to their successful design. Although this is a new idea promoted in Western societies, it is easy to see such space sharing phenomena in South East Asian cities. The aim of this study is to investigate the perception of users in shared spaces containing pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and motorists. Data were collected by a questionnaire using a photo survey technique in Taiwan, where people have been used to space sharing environments for decades. The factors affecting the road use experience, such as land use, density, road form, pedestrian facilities, pavement, vegetation, lighting level and traffic management tools, were embedded in the photo survey for the purpose of testing the most preferred shared space road user scenarios. Also, personal characteristics and mode choice information were asked in the questionnaire. The multinomial logit (MNL) modelling technique and the nested logit (NL) modelling technique were used to describe the respondents’ preferences to the scenarios and to quantify the effects of the design-specific factors related to shared spaces. The results showed that regardless of the kind of road user perceptions, road users are sensitive to vehicular traffic density factors. For pedestrians, high pedestrian density, presence of vendors, arcades, narrow road, brick paving, parking in middle of the road, traffic management tools and vegetation along the road were found to make pedestrians comfortable with walking through such areas. For drivers, high pedestrian density and vehicular traffic density, presence of vendors, narrow road width, brick paving, parking in middle of the road, vegetation along the road and presence of traffic management tools were found to enhance driver alertness. However, a lack of demarcations and traffic management tools were found to enhance pedestrian comfort and driver alertness. The results also revealed an interesting finding suggesting that the presence of safe zones (i.e. pedestrian facilities such as arcades) will reduce driver alertness and that high vehicular traffic density will increase driver alertness. These insights are useful with regard to shared space design principles as well as to the implementation of shared space schemes in Western societies.
ABSTRACT IN CHINESE i
ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH ii
1.1 Background and motivation 1
1.2 Procedure 2
1.3 Research Objectives 2
1.4 Significance of knowledge 2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 3
2.1 The differences between shared spaces and conventional road spaces 3
2.1.1 Measures of traffic management for shared spaces 3
2.1.2 The effect of traffic management for shared spaces on the kinetic features of flow 3
2.2 Factors affecting the performance of shared space designs 4
2.3 Perceptions of users in shared spaces 8
3. METHODOLOGY 9
3.1 Stated Preference Survey 9
3.1.1 Questionnaire Design 9
3.1.2 Survey Techniques 11
3.2 Data Collection 17
3.2.1 Study Area 17
3.2.2 Data Collection 17
3.3 Logit Modelling 18
3.3.1 Multinomial logit (MNL) model 20
3.3.2 Nested logit (NN) model 20
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 23
4.1 Statistics of the Survey 23
4.2 Estimation of the MNL Model and NL Model 24
4.2.1 Pedestrian survey 25
4.2.2 Driver survey 29
5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 34
6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK 35
APPENDIX Ⅰ 39
APPENDIX Ⅱ 43
APPENDIX Ⅲ 53
1. BAFATAKIS, C., DUIVES, D. & DAAMEN, W. 2015. Determining a pedestrian route choice through a photo survey. Transportation Research Record 2015 Annual Meeting.
2. BEELAERTS VAN BLOKLAND, R. 2008. Designing Stated Choice Experiments: An Analysis of the Effect of Airport Location on Air Passenger's Travel Choice. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.
3. BEN-AKIVA, M., BERGMAN, M., DALY, A. J. & RAMASWAMY, R. 1984. Modeling inter-urban route choice behaviour. The 9th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, VNU Press, 299-330.
4. BEN-AKIVA, M. & RICHARDS, M. G. 1976. Disaggregate multimodal model for work trips in The Netherlands. Transportation Research Record.
5. BEN-AKIVA, M. E. & LERMAN, S. R. 1985. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand, MIT Press.
6. BEN-JOSEPH, E. 1995. Changing the Residential Street Scene: Adapting the shared street (Woonerf) Concept to the Suburban Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, 504-515.
7. BENNETT, J. & BLAMEY, R. 2001. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Edward Elgar Press.
8. BIERLAIRE, M. 2003. BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. The 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland.
9. BIERLAIRE, M. 2009. Estimation of discrete choice models with BIOGEME 1.8. Transport and Mobility Laboratory, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
10. CASCETTA, E., NUZZOLO, A. & BIGGIERO, L. 1992. Analysis and modeling of commuters’ departure time and route choice in urban networks. Proceedings of the second international Capri seminar on urban traffic networks.
11. CASCETTA, E., NUZZOLO, A., RUSSO, F. & VITETTA, A. 1996. A modified logit route choice model overcoming path overlapping problems: specification and some calibration results for interurban networks. The 13th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, 697-711.
12. CHEN, F.-Y. 2015. The Implementation of Pedestrian Sidewalk Free-flowing Project : A Case Study of Tainan City. Institute of Political Science, National Sun Yat-sen University.
13. CHEN, J.-H. & LEE, T.-C. 2014. The speed-density diagrams of heterogeneous traffic containing pedestrians, bicycles and powered two-wheelers in shared spaces. The 19th international conference of hong kong society for transportation studies.
14. CHIANG, M.-G. 2016. Research on Pedestrians' Route Choice Bahaviors - A Case of Urban Arcade and Sidewalk. Department of Architecture, Chung Yuan Christian University.
15. DfT. 2007. Manual for Streets.
16. DfT. 2011. Local Transport Note 1/11 – Shared space.
17. DfT. 2012. Local Transport Note 1/12 – Shared use routes for pedestrians and cyclists.
18. FIRTH, K. 2011. Removing Traffic Engineering Control: The Awkward Truth? Traffic Engineering & Control, 52.
19. GOSLING, S. D., VAZIRE, S., SRIVASTAVA, S. & JOHN, O. P. 2004. Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93.
20. HAMILTON-BAILLIE, B. 2004a. A street revolution. Green Places, 20-23.
21. HAMILTON-BAILLIE, B. 2004b. Urban design: Why don't we do it in the road? Modifying traffic behavior through legible urban design. Journal of Urban Technology, 11, 43-62.
22. HAMILTON-BAILLIE, B. 2006. What is Shared Space.
23. HAMILTON-BAILLIE, B. 2008a. Shared space: reconciling people, places and traffic. Built environment, 34, 161-181.
24. HAMILTON-BAILLIE, B. 2008b. Towards shared space. Urban Design International, 13, 130-138.
25. HAMILTON-BAILLIE, B. & JONES, P. 2005. Improving traffic behaviour and safety through urban design. The ICE-Civil Engineering, 39-47.
26. HAMMOND, V. & MUSSELWHITE, C. 2013. The attitudes, perceptions and concerns of pedestrians and vulnerable road users to shared space: a case study from the UK. Journal of Urban Design, 18, 78-97.
27. HEINZ, I. H. 2010. Shared Space or Saved Space? The 4th International Symposium on Highway Geometric Design.
28. HIRAGUCHI, K. & KATO, K. 1998. Magnetic display type electronic bulletin board system. Google Patents.
29. HUANG, M.-H. 2012. Appropriate Arcade: Urban Governance and Everyday Politics in Kaohsiung. Graduate Institute of Buildong and Planning, National Taiwan University.
30. JONES, P. & BOUJENKO, N. 2011. Street Planning and Design Using Link and Place, Sharing urban transport solutions, 6, pp. 7–14.
31. JOSEPH, B. 1995. Changing the residential street scene. Journal of american planning association, 61, 504-515.
32. KAPARIAS, I., BELL, M. G., MIRI, A., CHAN, C. & MOUNT, B. 2012. Analysing the perceptions of pedestrians and drivers to shared space. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 15, 297-310.
33. KARNDACHARUK, A., WILSON, D. & DUNN, R. 2013. Analysis of pedestrian performance in shared-space environments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1-11.
34. LISCO, T. E. 1968. Value of Commuters Travel Time-A Study in Urban Transportation.
35. LUCE, R. D. 1959. Individual Choice Behavior a Theoretical Analysis, John Wiley and sons.
36. MARSCHAK, J. 1959. Binary choice constraints on random utility indicators. Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
37. MAYEUR, A., BREMOND, R. & BASTIEN, J. C. 2010. The effect of the driving activity on target detection as a function of the visibility level: Implications for road lighting. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 13, 115-128.
38. MCFADDEN, D. 1978. Modelling the choice of residential location. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California California.
39. MCGILLIVRAY, R. G. 1972. Binary choice of urban transport mode in the San Francisco Bay region. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 827-848.
40. METHORST, R., GERLACH, J., BOENKE, D. & LEVEN, J. 2007. Shared Space: Safe or Dangerous. A contribution to objectification of a popular design philosophy, 3.
41. MONDERMAN, H., CLARKE, E. & HAMILTON-BAILLIE, B. 2006. Shared Space-: the alternative approach to calming traffic. Traffic engineering & control, 47, 290-292.
42. MOODY, S. & MELIA, S. 2011. Shared space: Implications of recent research for transport policy. The Institute of Civil Engineers - Transport.
43. MOORE, G., CROXFORD, B., ADAMS, M., REFAEE, M., COX, T. & SHARPLES, S. 2008. The photo‐survey research method: capturing life in the city. Visual Studies, 23, 50-62.
44. PALLANT, J. 2013. SPSS survival manual, McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
45. PROVINCE, F. 2005. Shared Space–Room for Everyone: A New Vision for Public Spaces. Leeuwarden, Netherlands: Fryslan Province.
46. QUARMBY, D. A. 1967. Choice of travel mode for the journey to work: some findings. Journal of transport Economics and Policy, 273-314.
47. REID, S. 2009. DfT Shared Space Project Stage 1: Appraisal of Shared Space, MVA Consultancy.
48. SIMONS, R. H. & BEAN, A. R. 2008. Residential road lighting. In Lighting engineering ,389–401. Oxford: Architectural Press.
49. SRIVASTAVA, S., JOHN, O. P., GOSLING, S. D. & POTTER, J. 2003. Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of personality and social psychology, 84, 1041.
50. TALVITIE, A. 1972. Comparison of probabilistic modal-choice models: estimation methods and system inputs. Highway Research Record.
51. THOMAS, C. & WOOD, C. 2010. Shared space—safe space: meeting the requirements of blind and partially sighted people in a shared space. Guide Dogs for the Blind Association UK.
52. VROLIX, K. 2006. Behavioural Adaptation, Risk Compensation, Risk Homeostasis and Moral Hazard in Traffic Safety–Literature, Review. No. RA-2006-95.
53. WATSON, A. 1974. Legal transplants: An approach to comparative law. University of Georgia Press.
54. WILDE, G. J. 1988. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic accidents: propositions, deductions and discussion of dissension in recent reactions. Ergonomics, 31, 441-468.
55. WITTE, A. & MEISEL, D. 2011. Shared Streets and Alleyways. City of Ashland, Ashland Transportation System Plan.
56. YEH, C.-L. 2011. A Study of Street Pattern in Commercial Area. Department of Urban Planning, National Cheng Kung University.