Pedestrian Path Infrastructure in Urban Public Green Open Space (Case Study: Green Open Space Religious Monument Kendari City, Indonesia (original) (raw)

Abstract

Pedestrian paths in city parks are public spaces that always attract city residents to visit. The presence of this city park must heed efforts to arrange pedestrian paths that support the walkability of visitors, considering that generally, city parks are located in the city center and with an unlimited age range of visitors. The current paper highlights the evaluation of the performance and satisfaction of pedestrian path users in public green spaces using the Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) analysis tool and the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) analysis tool, followed by conducting a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) to obtain optimal models and strategies for pedestrian paths. The results help identifying the performance of pedestrian paths and indicate the CSI of pedestrian path users. The comfort of pedestrians on public open space roads needs to be improved. In terms of security, the height of the pedestrian path must be distinguished from the vehicle lane. This study reveals that the performance of existing pedestrian paths classified as good category are facilities for pedestrians with special needs (guiding block), road markings, crossing lanes, security systems (CCTV, security posts), speed control, and cleanliness. Those classified as adequate category are pedestrian path dimensions, lighting, the difference in the height of the pedestrian path with the road body, pedestrian markings and signs/signals, the surface texture of materials, seating, climate (shade), shelter, vegetation/shade plants, the number and quality of rubbish bins. Those with poor category are the availability of ramps, pedestrian paths connected to urban transportation elements, continuity of pedestrian paths, barriers on pedestrian paths, crossings, and noise reduction facilities. In addition, the user satisfaction index is fairly satisfying (65.57%).

Figures (10)

Figure 1. Analysis (IPA)

Figure 1. Analysis (IPA)

Table 2. The Optimal Pedestrian Lane Model

Table 2. The Optimal Pedestrian Lane Model

Figure 2. Model 1 Pedestrian Lane for Arterial Road Figure 4 is a snippet of model | of pedestrian paths on arterial roads. In the snippet above, you can clearly see the

Figure 2. Model 1 Pedestrian Lane for Arterial Road Figure 4 is a snippet of model | of pedestrian paths on arterial roads. In the snippet above, you can clearly see the

Figure 3. View of Model | Pedestrian Lane for Arterial Road

Figure 3. View of Model | Pedestrian Lane for Arterial Road

Figure 4. A Snippet of Model | Pedestrian Lane for Arterial Road

Figure 4. A Snippet of Model | Pedestrian Lane for Arterial Road

Figure 5. A Bus Stop Perspective of Model 1 Pedestrian Lane for Arterial Road

Figure 5. A Bus Stop Perspective of Model 1 Pedestrian Lane for Arterial Road

Figure 8 is a snippet of model 2 of pedestrian paths on collector roads. In the snippet above, you can clearly see the simulation of users carrying out activities in the Figure 6. Model 2 Pedestrian Lane for Collector Road Figure 9 illustrates model 2, namely the collector road type. The pedestrian lane zone (Segment 2) on the collector road consists of pedestrian-free space with a minimum width of 3.5-4 meters and a minimum supporting facility space of 0.9 meters with service attributes that meet the criteria of accessibility, connectivity, circulation, security, safety, comfort, beauty, climate or shade, and cleanliness. Pedestrian lane support facilities are provided so that all community groups can access the pedestrian lane, thus, attracting the interest and attention of children and street users and encouraging them to walk.

Figure 8 is a snippet of model 2 of pedestrian paths on collector roads. In the snippet above, you can clearly see the simulation of users carrying out activities in the Figure 6. Model 2 Pedestrian Lane for Collector Road Figure 9 illustrates model 2, namely the collector road type. The pedestrian lane zone (Segment 2) on the collector road consists of pedestrian-free space with a minimum width of 3.5-4 meters and a minimum supporting facility space of 0.9 meters with service attributes that meet the criteria of accessibility, connectivity, circulation, security, safety, comfort, beauty, climate or shade, and cleanliness. Pedestrian lane support facilities are provided so that all community groups can access the pedestrian lane, thus, attracting the interest and attention of children and street users and encouraging them to walk.

Figure 7. View of Model 3 Pedestrian Lane for Collector Road Figure 8. A Snippet of Model 2 Pedestrian Lane for Collector Road

Figure 7. View of Model 3 Pedestrian Lane for Collector Road Figure 8. A Snippet of Model 2 Pedestrian Lane for Collector Road

Figure 9. The Perspective of Model 2 Pedestrian Lane for Collector Road

Figure 9. The Perspective of Model 2 Pedestrian Lane for Collector Road

Key takeaways

sparkles

AI

  1. The study evaluates pedestrian path performance and user satisfaction in Kendari City, achieving a CSI of 65.57%.
  2. Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) identifies attributes like cleanliness and safety needing significant improvement.
  3. Facilities for pedestrians with special needs are classified as good, while ramps and continuity of paths are poor.
  4. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and SWOT analysis inform optimal strategies for enhancing pedestrian infrastructure.
  5. The proposed pedestrian path model emphasizes safety, comfort, and accessibility for all community groups.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (30)

  1. A. B. Jacobs, "Jalan Raya," Akses Mag, vol. 1, pp. 23-27, 1993.
  2. L. M. Valenzuela-Montes and R. Talavera-García, "Entornos de movilidad peatonal: Una revisión de foques, factores y condicionantes," Euro, vol. 41, pp. 5-27, 2015.
  3. S. Carr, A. M. Stone, L. Rivlin, and M. Francis, Public Space. USA: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
  4. J. R. Brown, E. A. Morris, and B. D. Taylor, "Planning Cars in the City: Planners, Engineers, and the Highway in the 20th Century," Jam. Plan. Assoc., vol. 75, pp. 161-177, 2009.
  5. P. Newman and J. Kenworthy, Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Car Addiction. Washngton DC: Island Press, 1999.
  6. R. Rafiemanzelat, M. I. Emadi, and A. J. Kamali, "City Sustainability: The Influence of Walkability on Built Environments," Transp. Res. Procedia, vol. 24, pp. 97-104, 2017.
  7. E. Cepolina, "Pedestrian Level of Service: the Impact of Social Groups on Pedestrian Flow Characteristics," Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 839-848, 2017.
  8. C. W. Harris and N. T. Dines, Time-Saver Standards for Landscape Architecture. Colombia: McGraw Hill, 1998.
  9. G. Wardianto, "Sidewalks of the Compromise of Pedestrians and Street Vendors," 2017.
  10. S. A. Irafany, S. Wunas, and S. Trisutomo, "Comfort Level and Priority Needs of Pedestrians on the Pedestrian Path of Jalan Jenderal Ahmad Yani Makassar," Int. J. Eng. Sci. Appl., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 105-112, 2020.
  11. H. M. Alhassan and N. Mahros, "Characterisation and modelling of pedestrian flows in hospital and academic environments," J. Teknol., vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 49-57, 2016.
  12. L. O. Sarmin, L. O. M. Magribi, and S. Sunaryo, "Hubungan Kondisi Fasilitas Pedestrian Terhadap Aspek Keselamatan Pejalan Kaki Di Depan Lippo Plaza Kota Kendari [Relationship of Pedestrian Facility Condition to Pedestrian Safety Aspect in Front of Lippo Plaza Kendari City]," Sultra Civ. Eng. J., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2020.
  13. J. Kitzinger, "The methodology of Focus Groups: The importance of interaction between research participants," Sociol. Health Illn., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 103-121, 1994.
  14. G. D. Asin, Environment. 2008.
  15. Ashadi, "Analysis of the Effect of Complementary Elements of Pedestrian Paths on Pedestrian Comfort Case Study: Pedestrian Orchard Road Singapore," J. Reason, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 77-90, 2012.
  16. D. B. Bhattacharyya and S. Mitra, "Making Siliguri a walkable city," Procedia -Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 96, pp. 2737-2744, 2013.
  17. I. Danoe, "Pengaruh Elemen-elemen Pelengkap Jalur Pedestrian terhadap Kenyamanan Pejalan Kaki (Studi Kasus: Penggal Jalan Pandanaran Dimulai dari Jalan Randusari Hingga Kawasan Tugu Muda) [The Influence of Pedestrian Pathway Complementary Elements on Pedestrian Comf," Artic. Sci. J. Urban Des. Settlements, vol. 5, no. 1, 2006.
  18. A. Avenzoar and E. Elviana, "Arah Penataan Jalusr Sirkulasi Guna Menunjang Walkability Pengunjung pada Taman Kota di Surabaya [Directions for Arrangement of Circulation Paths to Support Walkability of Visitors at City Parks in Surabaya]," LANGKAU BETANG J. Arsit., vol. 7, no. 2, p. 121, 2020.
  19. J. J. Fruin, Pedestrian Planning and Design. New York: Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, 1971.
  20. A. Banerjee, A. K. Maurya, and G. Lämmel, "A Review of Pedestrian Flow Characteristics and Level of Service over Different Pedestrian Facilities," Collect. Dyn., vol. 3, pp. 1- 52, 2018.
  21. T. Emtenan and S. I. Shahid, "Pedestrian Flow Characteristics Under Heterogeneous Traffic Conditions," Am. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 5, no. 5, p. 282, 2017.
  22. J. Gehl, No TitleLife Between Buildings:Using Public Space. London: Island Press, 1987.
  23. N. Tanan, Pedestrian facilities. Institute of Road Engineering, Ministry of Public Works, 2011.
  24. A. Mahmudah, S. Legowo, A. Sumarsono, S. Linta, and B. Irawan, "No TitleIs the indonesian regulation of standard level of service of a pedestrian path fulfill pedestrians' convenience," Third Int. Conf. Sustain. Infrastruct. Built Environ. (SIBE 2017), vol. 147, p. 02003, 2018.
  25. A. Rapoport, Human Aspect of Urban Form. Oxford: Pergamon Publishing, 1977.
  26. J. Grant, Bunbury CBD Walkability and Wayfinding Strategy. Bunbury: SWDC & The City Of Bunbury, 2010.
  27. H. Peng, X. Ma, and F. Chen, "Examining injury Severity of Pedestrians in Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes at Mid-Blocks Using Path Analysis," Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 17, no. 17, p. 6170, 2020.
  28. Simon, "Green Line Planning as City Identity," 1983.
  29. S. R. Yunus, MTQ Monument Southeast Sulawesi, Mark of an Unguarded City in Kompas Kendari. 2020.
  30. A. Ninek, Pedestrian Ways in Urban Design. Surabaya: Humanior Foundation Publisher, 2009.