Al-Qadisiyah Journal for Engineering Sciences

A comparative analysis of assessing the quality of the urban pedestrian environment in Dhaka using syntactic and statistical methods

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abontika Sara Israt 1, 2
Ahmad Sanusi Hassan 1

1 School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, 11800, Malaysia

2 Department of Architecture, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology, Dhaka, 1208, Bangladesh.

10.30772/qjes.2024.153021.1369
Abstract
Urban pedestrian environments rank among the most frequent public spaces, playing a vital role in enhancing urban liveability. In Dhaka, the rapid growth seen over recent decades has resulted in the city's streetscape increasingly losing its lively, mixed-use essence, shifting mainly towards being just traffic routes. This research underscores the pressing need to evaluate the quality of Dhaka’s pedestrian environment and streetscape to protect its distinctive character before further decline occurs. A mixed method approach is adopted here, such as syntactic analysis, questionnaire surveys, and physical observations, especially focusing on two selected roads in Dhaka. Techniques like Space Syntax and SPSS statistical analysis are employed to quantify spatial data and evaluate user perceptions accordingly regarding current streetscape features with a direct observation for validating the results. Through this integrated approach, the relationship between spatial configuration and spatial quality is closely examined. The findings reveal that combining these methodologies offers a novel and effective avenue for obtaining thorough and trustworthy results when measuring the quality of urban public spaces. Moreover, it shows that interactions between the physical environment and user perceptions significantly influence urban streetscape quality, presenting crucial insights for reimagining Dhaka as a more pedestrian-friendly city.

Keywords

Liveability
Spatial quality
Space syntax
Streetscape
Urban public space
  1. Carmona, Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design (3rd ed.), 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158457
  2. Biddulph, “Radical streets? the impact of innovative street designs on liveability and activity in residential areas,” URBAN DESIGN International, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 178–205, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2012.13
  3. Punter, “Developing urban design as public policy: Best practice principles for design review and development management,” Journal of Urban Design, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 167–202, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800701306195
  4. Low, Why Public Space Matters. Oxford University Press, 03 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197543733.001.0001
  5. B. Sholihah, “The quality of traditional streets in indonesia,” July 2016. [Online]. Available: https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/33235/
  6. W. Chapman and P. J. Larkham, “Urban design, urban quality and the quality of life: Reviewing the department of the environment’s urban design campaign,” Journal of Urban Design, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 211–232, 1999. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809908724447
  7. Erk ¨ok, “Waterfronts: Potentials for improving the quality of urban life,” A—Z ITU JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, vol. 6, no. 01, pp. 126 – 145, Jun. 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.az.itu.edu.tr/index.php/jfa/article/view/598
  8. Talen, “Pedestrian access as a measure of urban quality,” Planning Practice & Research, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 257–278, 2002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/026974502200005634
  9. J. Trip, “Assessing quality of place: A comparative ana- lysis of amsterdam and rotterdam,” Journal of Urban Af- fairs, vol. 29, pp. 501 – 517, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:153674653
  10. Serag El Din, A. Shalaby, H. E. Farouh, and S. A. Elariane, “Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood,” HBRC Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 86–92, 2013. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687404813000084
  11. Mexi and I. Tudora, “Livable urban spaces. public benches and the quality of daily life,” 2012. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:127541934
  12. Lloyd and C. Auld, “Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban environment,” Urban Policy and Research, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 339–356, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/0811114032000147395
  13. Pacione, “Urban environmental quality and human well being a social geographical perspective,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 19–30, 2003, urban environ-mental quality and human wellbeing. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204602002347
  14. Mahmoudi, F. Ahmad, and B. Abbasi, “Livable streets: The effects of physical problems on the quality and livability of kuala lumpur streets,” Cities, vol. 43, pp. 104–114, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275114002017
  15. B. Hadi Zamanifard, Tooran Alizadeh and E. Coiacetto, “Measuring experiential qualities of urban public spaces: users’ perspective,” Journal of Urban Design, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 340–364, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1484664
  16. van Nes and C. Yamu, Introduction to Space Syntax in Urban Studies, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/50404
  17. Hillier, Space is the Machine A Configurational Theory of Architecture, 1998. [Online]. Available: ISBN:9780521645287
  18. H. Bill Hillier, The Social Logic of Space, 1984. [Online]. Available: ISBN:9780511597237
  19. van Nes and C. Yamu, “Space syntax : a method to measure urban space related to social, economic and cognitive factors,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:131962044
  20. Geng, H.-W. Chau, E. Jamei, and Z. Vrcelj, “Understanding the street layout of melbourne’s chinatown as an urban heritage precinct in a grid system using space syntax methods and field observation,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 19, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12701
  21. D. Topcu and M. Topcu, “Visual presentation of mental images in urban design education:cognitive maps,” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 51, pp. 573–582, 2012, the World Conference on Design, Arts and Education (DAE-2012), May 1-3 2012, Antalya, Turkey. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812033460
  22. for Public Spaces, How to Turn a Place Around: A Handbook for Creating Successful Public Spaces, 2007. [Online]. Available: ISBN:0970632401
  23. Montgomery, “Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design,” Journal of Urban Design, vol. 3, pp. 93–116, 1998. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809808724418
  24. Tibbalds, Making People-Friendly Towns: Improving the Public Environment in Towns and Cities (1st ed.), 2000. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203469521
  25. for Public Spaces, What makes a successful place? [Online]. Available: https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeat
  26. Lynch, A Theory of Good City Form. MIT Press (MA), 1981.
  27. Appleyard, M. Gerson, and M. Lintell, Livable Streets, ser. Urban studies : planning. University of California Press, 1981. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.iq/books?id=pfreUQKD 4QC
  28. Parfect and G. Power, Planning for Urban Quality: Urban Design in Towns and Cities (1st ed.). Routledge, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203754467
  29. -J. Hospers, “The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life the flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent Richard florida,” Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 323–324, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00398.x
  30. Litman, “Evaluating transportation economic development impacts,” Canadian Electronic Library. Canada, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/bpcdj8
  31. L. Handy and K. J. Clifton, “Evaluating neighborhood accessibility: possibilities and practicalities,” Journal of transportation and statistics, vol. 4, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12424412
  32. J. Koohsari, T. Sugiyama, K. E. Lamb, K. Villanueva, and N. Owen, “Street connectivity and walking for transport: Role of neighborhood destinations,” Preventive Medici- ne, vol. 66, pp. 118–122, 2014. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743514002205
  33. Wang and J. Zacharias, “Landscape modification for ambient environmental improvement in central business districtsa case from beijing,” Urban Forestry Urban Greening, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 8–18, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866714001290
  34. Bosselmann, Urban Transformation Understanding City Form and Design, ser. Urban studies : planning. Island Press, 2008. [Online]. Available: ISBN:9781597264815
  35. Brown, Contested Space: Street Trading, Public Space, and Livelihoods in Developing Cities. ITDG Publishing, 2006. [Online]. Available: ISBN:1853396303
  36. Ujang, “Place attachment and continuity of urban place identity,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 49, pp.156–167, 2012, proceedings of the 1st National Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies, 1nCEBS, FAPS, UiTM, Shah Alam, Malaysia, 14–15 November, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812031102
  37. Shamsuddin and N. Ujang, “Making places: The role of attachment in creating the sense of place for traditional streets in malaysia,” Habitat International, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 399–409, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197397508000027
  38. A. Pissourios, “An interdisciplinary study on indicators: A comparative review of quality-of-life, macroeconomic, environmental, welfare and sustainability indicators,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 34, pp. 420–427, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X13002392
  39. E. Clark, M. Aranoff, E. Lavine, and K. M. Suteethorn, “Leed for neighborhood development: Does it capture livability?” Berkeley Planning Journal, vol. 26, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:130316888
  40. W. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc., 2009. [Online]. Available: ISBN:978-1-4129-6557-6
  41. J. W., Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, 2018. [Online]. Available: ISBN:1483344371
  42. Chua, Mastering Research Statistics. McGraw-Hill Education, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.iq/books?id=ZuTooAEACAA
  43. Taherdoost, “Sampling methods in research methodology; how to choose a sampling technique for research,” Available at SSRN, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3205035
  44. V. Krejcie and D. W. Morgan, “Determining sample size for research activities,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 607–610, 1970. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
  45. Hossain, The Socio-spatial Structure of ’spontaneous’ Retail Development in Dhaka City. University of London, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.iq/books?id=KY9oHAAACAAJ
  46. Islam and U. of Dhaka. Urban Studies Programme, Dhaka: From City to Megacity : Perspectives on People, Places, Planning, and Development Issues, ser. Bangladesh urban studies series. Urban Studies Programme, Department of Geography, University of Dhaka, 1996. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.iq/books?id=q PZAAAAMAAJ
  47. Volpe, “Completing your qualitative dissertation: A roadmap from beginning to end,” Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226613
  48. Gehl and L. Gemzøe, Public spaces - public life. Denmark: Arkitek- tens Forlag, 2004.
  49. “Measuring the liveable city,” Built Environment, vol. 29, no. 4, 2003.
  50. Harvey and L. Aultman-Hall, “Urban streetscape design and crash severity,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 2500, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3141/2500-01
  51. A. K. Shatha Mahmoud Al ODAT, “Lively streets: The role of streetscape elements in improving the experience of commercial street users in amman, jordan,” Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.24193/JSSP.2021.1.01
  52. M. Sauter, D., “Liveable streets and social inclusion,” Urban Des Int, vol. 13, p. 67–79, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2008.15
  53. Forsyth, M. Hearst, J. M. Oakes, and K. H. Schmitz, “Design and destinations: Factors influencing walking and total physical activity,” Urban Studies, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1973–1996, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43198450
Al-Qadisiyah Journal for Engineering Sciences
Volume 18, Issue 1
Winter 2025
Pages 1-9

  • Receive Date 22 April 2024
  • Revise Date 12 October 2024
  • Accept Date 07 January 2025

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Authors

Article Processing Charges (APC)

Reviewers

Call for Reviewers

Contact Us