Evaluating Pedestrian and Cyclist Friendliness in Urban Neighborhoods Using an Active Travel Index System: Application in 52 Chinese City Sub-Districts

Abstract

Active transportation plays a critical role in promoting sustainable, healthy, and equitable urban mobility, yet comprehensive tools for evaluating pedestrian and cyclist environments remain limited. This study develops an Active Travel Index to assess the walkability and cyclability of urban neighborhoods by integrating objective infrastructure measures with subjective user perceptions. To determine key indicators of the Active Travel Index, we analyzed multi-source data collected from four districts in three Chinese cities. The data included a customized geographic information system database of sidewalks and bicycle lanes of the five urban districts, panoramic video-based streetscape mapping covering 697 km road segments and 86 intersections, and 2,520 user surveys. This analysis resulted in an Active Travel Index framework composed of 13 indicators across three dimensions: network completeness, facility quality, and active travel vitality. Indicators reflect conditions such as path density, surface quality, crossing convenience, ride disturbances, accessibility to destinations, travel mode share, and user satisfaction. Indicator weights were determined through the analytic hierarchy process with expert input. In the application, the Active Travel Index was used to produce ranked evaluations of 52 subdistricts of the three cities, highlighting specific deficiencies and guiding policy recommendations. Results revealed substantial intra- and inter-city disparities in active travel infrastructure, particularly in surface continuity, vehicle intrusions, and design consistency. This index offers a replicable tool for diagnosing urban travel environments and informing infrastructure investments. By bridging technical assessments with user experiences, the Active Travel Index supports more inclusive and data-driven decision-making in transportation planning and performance monitoring.

Keywords

active transportation index development evaluation infrastructure walking cycling

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wang

Chen

Research on the Improvement of Surrounding Environment of Transportation Hub under the Background of Urban Renewal: A Case Study of the Integrated Transformation of the Surrounding Area of Dongzhimen Transportation Hub in Beijing City. China Ancient City, Vol. 38, No. 10, 2024, pp. 84–88. https://link.cnki.net/doi/10.19924/j.cnki.1674-4144.2024.010.012.

Peng

Gai

Chen

Analysis of Traffic Characteristics and Planning Thinking of Beijing Old City Hutong. China Ancient City, Vol. 1, 2024, pp. 62–68. http://zgmc.chinaac.net//oa/DArticle.aspx?type=view&id=202101010.

Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Urban Walking and Bicycle Transportation System Planning Standard (Standard No. GB/T 51439-2021). 2021. https://www.mohurd.gov.cn/gongkai/zc/wjk/art/2021/art_17339_250179.html. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Cervero

Kockelman

Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1997, pp. 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6.

Ewing

Cervero

Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766.

Alfonzo

M. A.

To Walk or Not to Walk? The Hierarchy of Walking Needs. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 37, No. 6, 2005, pp. 808–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504274016.

Walk Score. Walk Score Methodology. 2007. https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml. Accessed March 15, 2026.

National Association of Realtors (NAR). Walkability Index Methodology. 2013. https://www.nar.realtor/reports/walk-score-methodology.AccessedMarch 15, 2026.

Talavera-Garcia

Soria-Lara

J. A.

Q-PLOS, a Quantitative Method for Assessing Pedestrian Level of Service in Urban Environments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 82, 2015, pp. 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.10.004.

10.

Arup. Cities Alive: Towards a Walking World. Arup Group Ltd, 2016. https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/cities-alive-towards-a-walking-world. Accessed March 15, 2026.

11.

Moura

Cambra

Gonçalves

A. B.

Measuring Walkability for Distinct Pedestrian Groups with a Participatory Assessment Method: A Case Study in Lisbon. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 157, 2017, pp. 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.002.

12.

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). Pedestrians First: Tools for a Walkable City. 2018. https://www.itdp.org/publication/walkability-tool/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

13.

Buehler

Pucher

Cycling to Work in 90 large American Cities: New Evidence on the Role of Bike Paths and Lanes. Transportation, Vol. 39, 2011, pp. 409–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9355-8

14.

Mateo-Babiano

Pedestrian’s Needs Matter: Examining Manila’s Pedestrian Infrastructure. Transport Policy, Vol. 45, 2016, pp. 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.09.003.

15.

Akbarzadeh

Designing Bike Networks Using the Concept of Network Clusters. Applied Network Science, Vol. 3, 2018, p. 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-018-0069-0

16.

Iwińska

Blicharska

Pierotti

Tainio

de Nazelle

Cycling in Warsaw, Poland - Perceived enablers and barriers according to cyclists and non-cyclists. Transportation research. Part A, Policy and practice, 2018, 113, 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.014

17.

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). RideScore: Assessing Bicycle Support Around Transit. DVRPC, Philadelphia, P.A., 2007. https://dvrpc.github.io/RideScore/index.htm. Accessed March 15, 2026.

18.

PeopleForBikes. Bicycle Network Analysis (BNA). 2017. https://bna.peopleforbikes.org/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

19.

PeopleForBikes. City Ratings Methodology and Rankings. 2018. https://cityratings.peopleforbikes.org/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

20.

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). Cycling Cities: The Next Revolution in Sustainable Transport. 2020. https://www.itdp.org/publication/cycling-cities/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

21.

Nabipour

Rosenberg

M. W.

Nasseri

S. H.

The Built Environment, Networks Design, and Safety Features: An Analysis of Pedestrian Commuting Behavior in Intermediate-Sized Cities. Transport Policy, Vol. 129, 2022, pp. 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.09.024.

22.

Eboli

Forciniti

Mazzulla

Bellizzi

M. G.

Establishing Performance Criteria for Evaluating Pedestrian Environments. Sustainability, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2023, p. 3523. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043523.

23.

San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH). Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (BEQI). 2010. https://www.sfhip.org/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

24.

Transport for London. Cycling Environment Score (CERS) Methodology. Transport for London, London, 2016. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/cycling. Accessed March 15, 2026.

25.

New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT). Sidewalk Inspection Report Using LiDAR: 2017–2019 Data. 2020. https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

26.

City of Copenhagen. Bicycle Account 2019: Technical Appendix. 2019. https://cyclingsolutions.info/copenhagen-bicycle-account-2019/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

27.

City of Melbourne. (2007–present). Cycling Forums Summary Reports. 2025. https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

28.

Gallin

Quantifying Pedestrian Friendliness – Guidelines for Assessing Pedestrian Level of Service. Road and Transport Research. Vol. 10, 2001, pp. 47–55.

29.

Ujjwal

Bandyopadhyaya

Development of Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) Model and Satisfaction Perception Rating Models for Pedestrian Infrastructure for Mixed Land-Use Urban Areas. Transportation, Vol. 50, 2023, pp. 355–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-021-10247-8.

30.

Cabral

Kim

A. M.

An Empirical Reappraisal of the Level of Traffic Stress Framework for Segments. Travel Behaviour and Society, Vol. 26, 2022, pp. 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.09.007.

31.

Caviedes

Figliozzi

Modeling the Impact of Traffic Conditions and Bicycle Facilities on Cyclists’ On-Road Stress Levels. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 58, 2018, pp. 488–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.032.

32.

Harvey

Rodríguez

D. A.

Fang

Comparing Methods and Data Sources for Classifying Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress: How Well Do Their Outcomes Agree?

Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 101, 2024, pp. 2210–6707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.105151.

33.

Swift

, et al. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress. 2024. https://doi.org/10.21949/7say-9423.

34.

New Zealand Ministry of Transport. Public Attitudes to Walking and Cycling. 2021. https://www.transport.govt.nz/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

35.

Tokyo Metropolitan Transportation Bureau. MyCityReport: Resident Feedback Platform. 2023. https://www.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

36.

New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT). Bicycle Counts and Usage Data. 2006–2013. https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bike-counts.shtml. Accessed March 15, 2026.

37.

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan. Walking for Health Promotion Plan. 2022. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

38.

Copenhagenize Design Co. Copenhagenize Index 2025: Bicycle-Friendly City Ranking. 2025. https://copenhagenizeindex.eu/. Accessed March 15, 2026.

39.

Shanghai Municipal People’s Government. Shanghai Urban Transportation White Paper. Shanghai Transportation Commission, Shanghai, 2002. https://jtw.sh.gov.cn/ysqgkzzdgk/20250625/53b850f5c13c4aeab47d559c72c9403a.html. Accessed March 15, 2026.