Page 260 - Proceeding of Atrans Young Researcher's Forum 2019_Neat

“Transportation for A Better Life:
Smart Mobility for Now and Then”

23 August 2019, Bangkok, Thailand

2. Literature Review and by making participants view and listen them,
2.1 Overview and Definition of Walkability investigate about the influence of walker traffic
Walkability is a concept that indicates the behavior focusing on the road surface structure on
ease of walking in the regional environment and it road is carried out. As the existing research close to
was advocated in an effort to promote daily walking this research, it is able to be taken the survey on the
1)
movements especially in western countries . perceptual evaluation of the walking environment
7)
2)
Fujimoto et.al. claimed that "walkability" is the using the VR tool by Nakamura et al. .
concept includes not only a good walking Since it is considered that the walkability in
environment simply but also whole living the walking space is formed as an assembly of the
environment which creates a good community. Azmi elements that make up the space, it is necessary to
et al. claimed that the definition of walkability is structurally evaluate the ease of walking and the
3)
9)
vary on the researches. As some examples of them, components. Nakamura et al. performed basic
they introduce “the size of a construction analysis on perceptual evaluation of the walking path
environment friendly to the presence of people who using the VR tool, but didn’t analyze the relationship
live, shop, visit, spend fun or spend time in a certain between the components of the walking environment
6)
area “and “the concept related to how easy to walk and the ease of walking. Also, Aiba et al. compared
4)
the area is ”. In these studies, when indexing the survey using VR and the field survey with the
5)
walkability, indexing is performed based on barrier detection rate, but didn’t compare the
population density, road connectivity, and structural development of the walking environment
10)
surrounding land use data. However, this research itself. In this regard, Ozawa et al. evaluated the
aims to compare the evaluation items in terms of walkability around the station based on AHP and
tangible in the improvement of the walking targeted three stations in the metropolitan area of
environment around the railway station as a means Bangkok. They also applied this method for the
of access to BRT and urban railways where demand evaluation of walkability in several areas in Japan.
is growing overseas. So, we emphasize the Therefore, in this research, we suggest a
development level of walking environment and the method to evaluate the components using 360 °
elements that become obstacles, and walkability is video and HMD as a tool to evaluate the walking
defined as the development level of walking environment around the station and apply AHP to
environment, and comparative evaluation is the result to find comprehensive walkability.
performed using the evaluation items related to this.
3. Methodologies
2.2 Evaluation of Walking Space by Using In this research, field surveys and VR
VR Technology evaluation about walkability were conducted and the
Generally, a VR survey is performed by a evaluation results of those two surveys were
subject wearing a head mounted display and viewing compared to clarify differences between two
an image obtained by shooting an object space to be approaches. The streets around JR Narita Station and
evaluated with an omnidirectional camera. Since the Keisei Narita Station were selected as survey
walking space is photographed with an subjects. Since the selected streets used to use for
omnidirectional camera, the subject can freely shift commuting and attending school from the
the viewpoint in the three-dimensional object space surrounding residential area to the station and
for confirmation. accessing to sightseeing spots such as Naritasan
There are many existing studies that have Shinsho-ji Temple, various styles of walking
considered using VR technology in order to solve environments could be investigated. We asked 13
constraints such as labor of visiting the survey place respondents to answer the questionnaire on the
6)
and weather. For example, Aiba et al. performs walking environment of the 12 sections (Zones) set
barrier check on the walking route using VR and on the survey route. The first two sections (Zone1,2)
compares with the result of barrier check doing field of the survey section were the trial sections, and the
survey about barrier detection rate. Also, Narumi et answers in 10 sections of Zone 3 to Zone 12 were
7)
al. uses VR as a data analysis tool for landscape used for analysis. In order to set the length of the
analysis to compare the effects on landscape moving image used in the VR survey to about 30
evaluation caused by differences in shooting speed. seconds, the length of each survey section was set to
Furthermore, Ohashi et al. created VR space of about 33 m, assuming that the walking speed was 4
8)
road surface structure based on several conditions, km/h. For each of the selected sections (Zones), a

235