See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/23541458

Human movement behaviour in urban spaces: Implications for the design and
modelling of effective pedestrian environments

Article  in  Environment and Planning B Planning and Design · November 2004

DOI: 10.1068/b3060 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

104 1,056

5 authors, including:

Alexandra Willis Nathalia L Gjersoe

Edinburgh Napier University University of Bath
30 PUBLICATIONS   326 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   298 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Catriona Havard Jon M. Kerridge

The Open University (UK) Edinburgh Napier University
30 PUBLICATIONS   380 CITATIONS    107 PUBLICATIONS   543 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vulnerable witnesses View project

Conference Prefaces etc View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Catriona Havard on 09 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2004, volume 31, pages 805 ^ 828

DOI:10.1068/b3060

Human movement behaviour in urban spaces: implications for

the design and modelling of effective pedestrian environments

Alexandra Willisô
School of Psychology and Sociology, Napier University, South Craig, Craighouse Road,
Edinburgh EH10 5LG, Scotland; e-mail: a.willis@napier.ac.uk
Nathalia Gjersoe, Catriona Havard, Jon Kerridge}, Robert Kukla}
Transport Research Institute, Redwood House, 66 Spylaw Road, Edinburgh E10 5BR, Scotland;
e-mail: j.kerridge@napier.ac.uk, r.kukla@dcs.napier.ac.uk
Received 9 August 2003; in revised form 20 January 2004

Abstract. Despite a burgeoning research effort directed at the design and modelling of effective urban
spaces for pedestrians, remarkably little is known about how pedestrians actually negotiate urban spaces.
This paper reports the results of a video-based observational study aimed at exploring: (1) individuals'
movement preferences within uncluttered environments, in particular: (a) desired walking speed,
(b) microscopic position preferences, and (c) interpersonal distances between companions while walking;
and (2) the ways in which these variables might be influenced by the various personal, situational, and
environmental factors that characterise the context in which pedestrians move. The microscopic move-
ment trajectories of 2613 participants were investigated in a covert, video-based observational study of
three mixed-use (residential/retail) urban environments close to the city centres of Edinburgh and York,
United Kingdom. Age, gender, level of mobility, group size, time of day, and location were found to have
significant effects on movement preferences across the range of locations studied. We concluded that a
number of influential factors affect how humans negotiate urban spaces, and suggested how these factors
may be taken into account in attempts to design and model effective urban spaces for pedestrians.

1 Introduction
Predicting individuals' movement patterns through space is becoming an increasingly
important goal of urban and transport planners interested in designing effective urban
spaces for pedestrians (see Batty, 1997; 2001). Such predictions, however, are not
simpleönot least because a large number of variables, relating both to pedestrians
themselves and to the situations and environments in which they find themselves, must
be taken into account.
Simulation models offer a potential means by which planners can predict the
movement patterns of large numbers of pedestrians as they negotiate various urban
spaces. Of these, models that operate at the level of individual pedestrians currently
dominate the literature, no doubt reflecting their greater potential to mimic pedestrian
behaviour in a realistic and flexible way [see, however, Al-Gadhi and Mahmassani
(1991), and Blue and Adler (1998), for examples that focus on movement behaviour at
the aggregate level of pedestrian crowds].
Such `microscopic' models can be differentiated according to the principles and
rules that underpin the movement decisions of model pedestrians as they pass through
virtual space. Space-syntax models, for example, are based on the principle of `direct
perception' (see Gibson, 1979): pedestrians in such models act by evaluating the visual
properties of footway surfaces around them and making a movement decision based on
which route offers them the greatest affordance (Hillier et al, 1993; Turner and Penn,
2002). Most other models, however, are based on the principle that each pedestrian is

ô Corresponding author. Also at the Transport Research Institute.

} Also at the School of Computing.
806 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

motivated by a desire to reach a particular goal location, and will choose the optimum
path (normally the most direct) in order to get there. How this path is chosen may be
determined by simple `social force' rules that describe individuals' interactions with
other pedestrians in a range of crowded contexts (for example, Helbing et al, 2001),
rules of utility maximisation that describe a rational choice made by pedestrians in
weighing up the various advantages and trade-offs in choosing a particular route (for
example, Hoogendoorn and Bovy, 2003), or rules of queueing or helping that describe
people's behaviour in evacuation scenarios (for example, Galea and Galparsoro, 1994;
Lovas, 1994). STREETS, an agent-based simulation model, seeks to mimic route-choice
behaviour at both microscopic and mesoscopic spatial scales, using a combination of
deterministic way-finding and simple interaction rules (for example, Haklay et al, 2001).
Our own agent-based model of pedestrian movement, PEDFLOW, uses a context-
mediated approach to select which movement decision is the most appropriate from
a range of options associated with the prevailing conditions (Kerridge et al, 2001; Kukla
et al, 2001; 2003).
In order to be of value as an evaluative tool, any microscopic model of pedestrian flow
must yield a meaningful output that can be readily used by planners to evaluate the
`walkability' of pedestrian areas. Such output may take the form of an aggregate trail of
individuals' trajectories through space, indicating regions of high and low pedestrian use,
or, more commonly, estimates of average delay, based on comparisons of ideal versus
actual average walking speeds and distances experienced by agents in the simulation.
More importantly, perhaps, in order to be of value as a predictive tool, any micro-
scopic model must be able to simulate realistic pedestrian behaviour. However, our
understanding of how pedestrians behave at a microscopic level, and how their behav-
iour is shaped by the various personal, situational, and environmental factors that
characterise their interactions with urban spaces, remains extremely poor. Although
some researchers have attempted to validate their models using purposely collected
observational data relating to a specific behaviour and case-study location (see, for
example, Helbing et al, 2001), there is widespread agreement that a more comprehen-
sive appreciation of how pedestrians negotiate space is required to enhance the validity
and reliability of models that seek to simulate movement behaviour at a microscopic
level (see Hoogendoorn et al, 2003; Kerridge et al, 2001; Turner and Penn, 2002).
The empirical literature does provide some insights relating to various elements of
human movement behaviour in urban spaces. Of these, the most fundamental include
walking speed (a parameter central to most microscopic simulation models) and the
various distances people choose to maintain between themselves and other entities around
them (such as obstacles, building edges, kerbs, and other pedestrians) while walking.
The reported mean walking speed of pedestrians in urban environments, for example,
varies between approximately 1.0 ^ 1.1 m sÿ1 (for example, Polus et al, 1983; Virkler,
1998) and 1.5 m sÿ1 (Knoblauch et al, 1996). A number of factors may explain this
variation in recorded speeds. Personal factors such as age and gender certainly appear
to contribute: there is a tendency, for example, for males to walk faster than females
(for example, Boles, 1981; Knoblauch et al, 1996), though this is not always the case
(see Fugger et al, 2000), and for walking speed to decline with increasing age during
adulthood (Bowman and Vecellio, 1994; Coffin and Morrall, 1995).
Situational factors (in other words, those that characterise the particular context in
which a pedestrian finds himself or herself, but which are not `fixed' from one outing to the
next) may also help explain differences in recorded walking speeds between studies. It is
well known, for example, that the prevailing density of other pedestrians has a significant
effect on individuals' walking speeds: indeed, the speed ^ flow relationship of pedes-
trian movement patterns is well documented (for example, Fruin, 1971; Henderson, 1971).
Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 807

Other situational factors, such as group size and level of mobility may also play a
role, although these have not received as much attention in the literature (see, however,
Boles, 1981; Knoblauch et al, 1996).
Finally, a number of environmental factors may also influence spontaneous walking
speeds. We know, for example, that prevailing temperature affects how fast pedestrians
move (Rotton et al, 1990), and that walking speeds vary according to the type of facility
studied: people seem to move more quickly when crossing roads, for example, than
when negotiating a footway (see, for example, Lam et al, 1995), and when the volume of
prevailing traffic is high (Fugger et al, 2000; Knoblauch et al, 1996). It is also likely that
differences in the overall function of a pedestrian area (for example, shopping, leisure,
business, transport interchange, `route to school') will also prove significant, presumably
because of the differing priorities and goals of the pedestrians who populate them.
Studies exploring the space preferences of pedestrians in urban areas have mainly
focused on establishing various levels-of-service criteria relating to pedestrian traffic in
crowded or potentially crowded areas (for example, Fruin, 1971; Pushkarev and Zupan,
1975). Early reports suggested that people prefer to maintain a buffer zone of around
0.45 m between themselves and the edges of buildings (for example, Ciolek, 1978;
Fruin, 1971), a smaller distance (approximately 0.1 m) to stationary items of street
furniture (Habicht and Braaksma, 1984) and a larger distance (around 0.8 to 0.9 m)
between themselves and other pedestrians (Dabbs and Stokes, 1975); one report also
suggested that people like to maintain a distance of around 0.75 m between themselves
and their companion(s) when walking (Burgess, 1983). Many of these preliminary
findings, however, have remained largely uncorroborated (see, for example, Kwon
et al, 1998), and the effects of various personal and environmental characteristics on
these spacing behaviours remain unexplored.
Although useful for shaping broad guidelines in the design of high-volume pedes-
trian facilities, such studies are of limited use to researchers interested in modelling the
microscopic movement behaviour of individual pedestrians. First, interstudy differ-
ences in the methodology (not least the method of data collection and the criteria used
for measurement), type of environment, and the nature and density of the prevailing
pedestrian population make valid comparisons between studies almost impossible: this
essentially precludes a comprehensive understanding of how the many confounding factors
affect pedestrians' movement behaviour. Second, many agent-based models calculate
differences between ideal and actual movement patterns experienced by modelled pedes-
trians in determining the output of a simulation (for example, in estimating average delay);
however, few empirical studies have attempted to explore the fundamental aspects of
movement behaviour in `ideal' circumstances, concentrating instead on pedestrian activity
in a variety of constrained or congested contexts.
In the present paper we attempt to address these shortcomings through the systematic
study of naturalistic human movement behaviour in a range of uncongested, urban spaces.
Specifically, our study aimed to characterise the elements of behaviour fundamental to all
pedestrian models (namely, desired walking speeds and spacing behaviours), and how
they vary according to various personal, situational, and environmental characteristics,
within environments that offer the freedom for pedestrians to negotiate space as they
wish: our overall aim, then, was to enhance our understanding of how our walking
behaviour is shaped by the context in which we move. The study formed part of a
larger research project concerned with developing an agent-based model of pedestrian
movement (PEDFLOW) according to empirical analyses of how pedestrians actually
behave (see, for example, Kukla et al, 2001; Willis et al, 2000; 2002). The findings, we
hope, should also prove useful to any researcher interested in designing more effective
pedestrian spaces and in modelling pedestrian behaviour at a microscopic level.
808 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

2 Methods
Microscopic movement patterns of individual pedestrians were investigated in a series
of covert, video-based observational studies conducted at three case-study locations in
York and Edinburgh, United Kingdom. We focused on environments that are typical of
many medium-sized European cities: namely, those comprising pavements bounding a
single-carriageway road (of variable traffic flow), and within which space for competing
users is limited.
Video cameras were mounted discreetly within each site of interest in order to
avoid the well-known phenomenon (the `observer effect') that individuals change their
behaviour when they know they are being watched. Movement trajectories of all
pedestrians who met our inclusion criteria were analysed by using a combination of
commercially available motion-tracking software and custom measurement tools. Data
relating to a range of personal, situational, and environmental factors were recorded
alongside various measured and derived variables relating to walking behaviour (such
as desired walking speed and spacing behaviour) and subjected to multiple statistical
analyses. All work was conducted in accordance with the British Psychological Society
(BPS)'s ethical code of conduct and the UK Data Protection Act (1998).
2.1 Background
The current study represents the first attempt at a systematic survey of microscopic
movement behaviours in urban environments using covert, video-based techniques.
Two main drawbacks with this type of approach may explain why no such survey has
been attempted to date. First, the problem of calibrating a foreshortened video image,
which arises when the camera is not positioned 908 laterally and horizontally with
respect to the ground, has typically limited video surveys to locations where bulky
scaffolds can be erected to hold the camera directly over the observation area (for
example, Pushkarev and Zupan, 1975): such methods are expensive, may encourage
atypical behaviours, and consequently restrict the range of environments that can be
usefully surveyed. Second, tracking the fine-grained trajectories of pedestrians as they
negotiate space has so far proven technologically challenging, and immensely labori-
ous. Recent developments in digital image capture and processing at least provide the
potential for more accurate, automated methods of trajectory tracing (for example,
Hoogendoorn et al, 2003; Makris and Ellis, 2002; Teknomo et al, 2001): however, no
techniques are yet available that allow the automatic tracking of pedestrians outside
the controlled environment of the laboratory with an acceptable degree of reliability.
For this reason, we developed a semiautomatic protocol which is flexible enough to
permit the study of a range of urban locations without the need for highly conspicuous
equipment, and which operates at a scale appropriate for the fine-grained analysis
of individual movement trajectories through space. This protocol incorporates a set of
standardised procedures that maximises accuracy in tracking pedestrians' movements
and minimises the time taken for analysis (see Willis et al, 2000; 2002).
2.2 Sample
A total of 2613 pedestrians took part, unwittingly, in the survey. Because we were
interested in exploring movement patterns under conditions that most closely approxi-
mated `ideal' circumstances (that is, unencumbered by obstacles or other pedestrians),
only pedestrians deemed freely able to select their position and walking speed were
eligible for inclusion. Based on a combination of estimates of pedestrian level of
service A suggested by Fruin (1971) and the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000),
this translated to a total of no more than two other people (excluding companions)
within an area 6 m directly ahead of the pedestrian under analysis and 0.75 m either
side as he or she entered the sampling area. As well as meeting this criterion, eligible
Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 809

participants had to move across the entire sampling frame without stopping or retracing
their steps, and be readily identifiable according to each of the four principal personal
and situational characteristics of interest in the present study (age group, gender, level of
mobility, and group size). Only those walking alone, or with one or two companions,
were eligible for inclusion.
2.3 Procedure
Video footage was collected from each of three case-study locations using (a) a digital
camcorder mounted on a tripod, (b) closed-circuit television cameras operated by
collaborators within local city councils, or (c) VHS video cameras installed by private
survey companies. Footage was then digitised by using a standard video capture card
housed in a PC. The spatial resolution of digitised video images varied between
3526288 pixels for VHS video footage and 7686576 pixels for digital video camera
footage. The frame rate was 25 frames per second in all cases.
Three case-study locations were studied at various intervals between April 2000
and March 2001 (see figure 1, over). All were mixed-use (residential/retail) areas within
1 mile of their respective city centres. The first two sites were selected for their position
in relation to the city of York's footstreets district. This area comprises sixteen streets at
the heart of the city centre designated by the council for priority pedestrian use: within
this area, all vehicular traffic (save emergency vehicles) is prohibited during most of the
day, typically between 10.30 and 17.00.
The three case-study locations were:
(a) High Petergate, York: a narrow, mixed-use street just outside, but adjacent to the
city's footstreets district. The road was approximately 3.9 m wide and the pavements
either side approximately 1.3 m in width. This street was selected for study because a
daytime traffic restriction was scheduled for implementation during the lifetime of
the survey, allowing behaviour to be studied both before and after the scheme was
implemented.
(b) Stonegate, York: another narrow, mixed-use street similar in dimensions and archi-
tectural style to High Petergate, but at the centre of the established footstreets precinct
of York city centre. Pavement and road dimensions here are almost identical to those
in High Petergate (pavements 1.35 m wide, road 4.35 m).
(c) Polwarth Gardens, Edinburgh: a more typical urban environment, comprising pave-
ments (1.75 m width) bordering a bidirectional, single-carriageway street (approx.
11.5 m). Daytime traffic flow through this area (approximately 248 ^ 1100 vehicles per
hour) is typically light to moderate.
Between one and two hours' footage was typically collected during any one session,
although a twelve-hour period were surveyed at one case-study location (Polwarth
Gardens, Edinburgh) in order to investigate the effects of time of day. Filming took
place on weekdays between Monday and Thursday. The weather on all days was
overcast or cloudy with sunny periods (never raining) and the temperature moderate,
ranging from approximately 7 to 158 C.
Footage of all pedestrians who met our inclusion criteria were clipped from
digitised master recordings and imported into commercially available motion analysis
software for analysis (WinAnalyseÕ, Mikromak, Berlin). The software included several
useful routines which could be employed, first, to calibrate the foreshortened video
image using real-world coordinates of visible features on the ground (such as road
markings), then to track the changing position of the pedestrian across each frame of
the video clip. Custom software, developed by the authors in JAVA (see Kukla et al,
2001), was used to transform these data into a two-dimensional plot of each pedes-
trian's trajectory through the filming area, within an environmental context defined by
810 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. Still images captured from digitised video footage of the three case study locations.
(a) High Petergate, York (hand-held digital video camera: resolution 7686576 pixels). (b) Stone-
gate, York (VHS closed-circuit television cameras controlled by the City of York Council:
resolution 3846288 pixels). (c) Polwarth Gardens, Edinburgh (VHS video cameras commissioned
by traffic survey company: resolution 3526288 pixels).
Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 811

Pedestrians'
trajectories

Pedestrians'
positions at time t

Pavement boundaries

Figure 2. A bird's eye visualisation of pedestrian trajectories through one of the case-study
locations (High Petergate), as depicted by our custom measurement software. This software
collects data about the frame-by-frame position of each pedestrian under analysis, plots his or
her x=y trajectory in relation to salient features of the environment (for example, pavement
boundaries, companions, etc), and provides a range of tools for the systematic measurement of
various speeds and distances that characterise human movement behaviour in urban spaces.

the user (see figure 2). In this way, a bird's-eye visualisation of each pedestrian's
journey could be generated, and a range of measurements made relating to various
aspects of his or her microscopic movement.
As well as key measurements describing how people moved through the survey
areas, trained observers noted a range of personal characteristics about the individual(s)
under surveillance (for example, age group and gender), situational characteristics that
were specific to, but not necessarily fixed attributes of the individual (such as group size,
time of day, and level of mobility), and environmental features (notably, the location) that
described the overall context in which they walked. Interobserver reliability in catego-
rising pedestrians according to these categories was high. All data were entered into
a statistical software package for subsequent analysis.
812 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

3 Results
3.1 Walking speed
A summary of all data is provided in table 1. The mean walking speed of individuals in
our sample as a whole (1.47 m sÿ1) lay towards the higher end of the range reported
in previous studies. The data were normally distributed about this mean, with mini-
mum and maximum speeds of 0.45 and 5.56 m sÿ1, respectively, and standard deviation
of 0.299 m sÿ1 (see figure 3). The highest reported speed values (namely, those above
around 2.5 m sÿ1 ) typically came from the few individuals who trotted or ran through
the sampling area.
500

400
Frequency

300

200

100

0
0.55 0.95 1.35 1.75 2.15
Walking speed (m sÿ1 )
Figure 3. Distribution of walking speeds. Frequency distribution of individual pedestrians' walk-
ing speeds averaged across the survey area (n ˆ 2613). The data are distributed normally about
the mean (1.47 m sÿ1 ), with a standard deviation of 0.299 m sÿ1 (see table 1 for details).

In the following paragraphs the possible effects of a variety of personal, situational,

and environmental factors on pedestrians' chosen walking speed are explored in turn.
All data for each of these conditions are shown in table 1.
3.1.1 Effect of gender
In line with several previous studies, we found that men walked, on average, faster than
women. This difference (1.52 versus 1.42 m sÿ1) was highly significant (independent-
samples t-test: t2611 ˆ ÿ8:755; p 5 0:001). Variability was slightly higher amongst
males (as indicated by a larger standard deviation), but walking speeds were normally
distributed around the mean in both groups (see figure 4, over).
3.1.2 Effect of age
The speed at which participants chose to walk declined, on average, with increasing
age. Differences in mean walking speed between age groups were highly significant
[one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA): F4, 2608 ˆ 75:9; p 5 0:001; see figure 5, over].
Post hoc tests confirmed that adults who appeared to fall within the second and third
age groups (16 ^ 50 years) walked significantly faster than those in both older groups,
and that pedestrians who appeared to be over 65 years walked significantly more
slowly than everyone else (Dunnett's T; p 5 0:05). The youngest group (5 16 years)
exhibited one of the highest mean walking speeds, but also the greatest variability in
speed measurements: the latter was most likely the result, at least in part, of the
relatively small sample size (n ˆ 114) and the greater inherent variability in walking
speeds within a developmentally diverse age range (between approximately 10 and 15
years).
Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 813

3.1.3 Effect of mobility

Over 99% of participants (2592 out of a total of 2613) could be readily classified into
one of five categories describing their overall level of mobility (see figure 6, over). The
remainder (n ˆ 21) were typically associated with a particular activity, such as wheeling
a wheelchair, pushing a bicycle, or walking a dogöeach of which contained too few
observations to merit a separate category.
Table 1. Summary of data: walking speed.

Variable Walking speed (m sÿ1 ) n

mean median SD minimum maximum

Gender
Female 1.42 1.42 0.251 0.50 3.66 1314
Male 1.52 1.52 0.333 0.45 5.56 1299
Age (approximate)
<16 1.53 1.46 0.447 0.54 3.98 114
16 ± 25 1.55 1.54 0.323 0.55 5.56 816
26 ± 50 1.47 1.47 0.246 0.45 3.80 1196
51 ± 64 1.38 1.38 0.243 0.61 2.09 323
>64 1.16 1.14 0.255 0.54 1.77 164
Mobility
Unencumbered 1.50 1.48 0.320 0.45 5.56 1244
With small bag or case 1.46 1.47 0.266 0.58 3.80 1032
With larger shopping 1.40 1.38 0.266 0.65 2.40 242
bags or luggage
With small children, 1.39 1.40 0.248 0.50 1.82 54
pram, or buggy
With mobility aid 0.98 0.94 0.169 0.76 1.39 20
Other 21
Group size
Singleton (1) 1.52 1.52 0.312 0.45 5.56 1745
Group (2 or 3) 1.36 1.37 0.245 0.50 3.13 868
Group gender
Male (alone) 1.58 1.58 0.346 0.45 5.56 887
Female (alone) 1.46 1.47 0.259 0.55 3.66 858
Male ‡ male 1.45 1.44 0.282 0.94 3.13 71
Female ‡ female 1.35 1.35 0.210 0.50 2.08 117
Female ‡ male 1.33 1.33 0.239 0.73 2.60 227
Time
07.00 ± 09.00 1.50 1.51 0.240 0.55 2.97 305
09.01 ± 11.00 1.48 1.49 0.301 0.61 3.25 251
11.01 ± 13.00 1.44 1.45 0.310 0.50 3.42 377
13.01 ± 15.00 1.46 1.44 0.295 0.63 3.98 1219
15.01 ± 17.00 1.47 1.48 0.358 0.54 5.56 258
17.01 ± 19.00 1.51 1.52 0.296 0.45 3.48 203
Location
High Petergate (before) 1.38 1.41 0.290 0.74 1.95 273
High Petergate (after) 1.45 1.44 0.267 0.63 3.98 993
Stonegate 1.47 1.48 0.227 0.78 2.04 209
Polwarth Gardens 1.50 1.51 0.333 0.45 5.56 1138

Total 1.47 1.47 0.299 0.45 5.56 2613

814 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

300

250

200
Frequency

150

100

50

0
(a)
300

250

200
Frequency

150

100

50

0
0.55 0.95 1.35 1.75 2.15
(b) Walking speed (m sÿ1 )

Figure 4. Effect of gender on walking speed. Frequency distribution of individual pedestrians'

walking speeds plotted separately for (a) females (mean ˆ 1.42 m sÿ1 ; SD ˆ 0.251; n ˆ 1314) and
(b) males (mean ˆ 1.52 m sÿ1 ; SD ˆ 0.333; n ˆ 1299) (see table 1 for details). Note how the entire
distribution is shifted towards higher speeds for males compared with females: the difference in
walking speed between the two groups was highly significant ( p 5 0:001).
500
<16
16 ± 25
400 26 ± 50
51 ± 64
>64
300
Frequency

200

100

0
0.55 0.95 1.35 1.75 2.15
Walking speed (m sÿ1 )

Figure 5. Effect of age on walking speed. Frequency distribution of individual pedestrians' walking
speeds (m sÿ1 ) according to age (in years): note how the data are reasonably normally distributed
within each of the four age groups under 65 years, but skewed towards lower speeds in the oldest age
group. The effect of age on spontaneous walking speed was highly significant ( p 5 0:001) (see table 1
for details).
 Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 815

1.6
Walking speed (m sÿ1 )

1.4

1.2

1.0

d g s) re
n
aid
re ba g( ld
be all ba ch
i ty
um g ili
nc Sm in all ob
ne o pp Sm M
U Sh
Mobility classification

Figure 6. Effect of mobility on walking speed. Bar chart depicting mean walking speed (m sÿ1 )
for each of our five mobility classifications (see also table 1). Error bars indicate 1 standard
error of the mean. The effect of mobility on walking speed was highly significant ( p 5 0:001).

These mobility classifications were developed throughout the data analysis proce-
dure according to an iterative, bottom-up approach, and appeared to reflect differences
in the degree of physical or attentional effort required in walking. Carrying large
shopping bags, for example, or walking with young children typically demand more
space and, arguably, greater attentional resources in negotiating space than walking
unencumbered by baggage or other accoutrements. Unfortunately, the nature of covert
observational studies precludes the consideration of mobility classifications based on
physical health: as such, we could not assess the effects of various circulatory or
ambulatory difficulties, nor visual or hearing impairments which we know from the
substantial health-related literature can play an important role in decisions of whether
and how to walk in urban environments.
A one-way ANOVA revealed highly significant differences in mean walking speed
between groups (F4;2587 ˆ 22:1; p 5 0:001). Post hoc tests (Dunnett's T ) confirmed that
unencumbered pedestrians walked significantly faster, on average, than any other
group, and that people walking with a mobility aid (such as walking stick, frame, or
crutches) walked significantly more slowly than anyone else ( p 5 0:05). Average walk-
ing speeds of people carrying larger shopping bags (1.40 m sÿ1 ) were also significantly
lower than for those carrying only handbags or briefcases: although the mean speeds of
participants with small children were very similar (1.39 m sÿ1 ), they were not signifi-
cantly different from those with small bags or cases. We suspect that this nonsignificant
result arises from the greater variability in walking speed measures among pedestrians
with children and from its smaller sample size rather than from any real difference in
speed preferences between these groups.
3.1.4 Effect of group size
Single pedestrians walked faster, on average, than those walking with one or two
companions (1.52 and 1.36 m sÿ1, respectively), with data for both populations falling
normally about the mean (see figure 7, over). The difference in desired walking speed
between singletons and groups (0.16 m sÿ1 ) was highly significant (independent-samples
t-test: t2, 487 ˆ 2:28; p 5 0:001).
816 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

300

250

200
Frequency

150

100

50

0
(a)
300

250

200
Frequency

150

100

50

0
0.55 0.95 1.35 1.75 2.15
(b) Walking speed (m sÿ1 )

Figure 7. Effect of group size on walking speed. Frequency distribution of individual pedestrians'
walking speeds plotted separately for (a) singletons (mean ˆ 1.52 m sÿ1 ; SD ˆ 0.312; n ˆ 1745)
and (b) groups of two or three (mean ˆ 1.36 m sÿ1 ; SD ˆ 0.245; n ˆ 868) (see table 1 for details).
Note how both sets of data are normally distributed, but that for groups is shifted towards lower
speeds compared with singletons: the difference in walking speed between single pedestrians and
pairs or triplets was highly significant ( p 5 0:001).

The effect of walking in a group may have been confounded at least in part by
gender, as proportionally more females were observed to walk in groups (54%) than
males (46%). A separate analysis was therefore carried out on groups defined accord-
ing to gender. A one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in mean walking
speed between these groups according to gender (F2, 412 ˆ 7:34; p 5 0:01). Post hoc
comparisons confirmed that all-male groups walked significantly faster than both
female-only and mixed-gender groups (Dunnett's T ; p 5 0:05), but that the latter
two groups walked at comparable speeds.
3.1.5 Effect of time of day
Average walking speeds in our sample varied with time of day (see figure 8). Pedes-
trians in our sample walked faster, on average, during the early morning (07.00 ^ 09.00)
and late afternoon (17.00 ^ 19.00), and slowest during the midday periods (11.00 ^ 15.00).
The effect of time of day on walking speed was significant (one-way ANOVA:
F5, 2607 ˆ 2:98; p 5 0:05). However, post hoc analyses revealed that significant differ-
ences in mean speed were apparent only between the 11.00 ^ 13.00 slot and both the
earliest (07.00 ^ 09.00) and latest (17.00 ^ 19.00) periods (Dunnett's T ; p 5 0:05). These
differences most likely reflect a combination of trip purpose and group size, both of
 Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 817

1.55
Walking speed (m sÿ1 )

1.50

1.45

1.40

1.35
07.00 ± 09.01 ± 11.01 ± 13.01 ± 15.01 ± 17.01 ±
09.00 11.00 13.00 15.00 17.00 19.00
Time of day

Figure 8. Effect of time of day on walking speed. Bar chart depicting mean walking speed (m sÿ1 )
for each of six, two-hour time periods between 7 am and 7 pm (see also table 1). Error bars
indicate  standard error of the mean. Pedestrians in our sample walked significantly faster, on
average, during the first and last time periods compared with the midday period (11.01 ^ 13.00):
p 5 0:05.

which may be disproportionately distributed across different times of day, and which
may indeed interact with each other. It is not unreasonable to assume, for example,
that a greater proportion of journeys made in the two hours before 09.00 and after
17.00 are made up of trips to and from work, and that, consequently, people will walk
more quickly to reach their destination on time. Moreover, most commuting journeys
are completed alone, rather than in groups: as such, there is probably a greater
proportion of journeys made by singletons, who we know walk significantly faster
than groups, between 07.00 and 09.00, and 17.00 and 19.00.
3.1.6 Effect of location
Mean walking speed was found to differ quite considerably between our case-study
locations (see figure 9, over), suggesting that the environmental context as a whole
played an important part in people's decisions to walk at a certain pace. We suspected,
however, that at least part of this difference could be attributed to group size, as groups
accounted for a greater proportion of the population sampled in High Petergate, the
slowest-moving location (44.7%), than they did in the faster-paced Polwarth Gardens
(26.3%). As we suspected, a two-way, between-factors ANOVA identified a highly
significant effect of location (F3, 2605 ˆ 10:25; p 5 0:001), group size (F1, 2605 ˆ 103:46;
p 5 0:001), and the interaction between the two F3, 2605 ˆ 5:42; p 5 0:01).
In order to separate further the effects of group size from location, data for
singletons and groups were subjected to separate statistical analyses (see table 2,
over). Interestingly, singletons showed no differences in mean walking speeds between
any of the locations surveyed [one-way ANOVA: F3, 1741 ˆ 0:95; p 4 0:40). This finding
suggests that the desired walking speed of pedestrians is remarkably stable across
locationöat least for the limited range of environmental contexts studied here: if so,
the similarity of speeds recorded between locations suggests a high degree of reliability
in our measurement protocol.
The effect of location on groups' walking speeds, however, was highly significant
(F3, 864 ˆ 18:75; p 5 0:001). Post hoc tests (Dunnett's T ; p 5 0:05) revealed that the
mean walking speeds of groups in High Petergate before traffic restrictions were
implemented (1.23 m sÿ1 ) were significantly lower than after the measures had been
 818 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

1.55
Walking speed (m sÿ1 )

1.50

1.45

1.40

1.35
te te
at
e ns
ga ga eg de
e ter e' ter ' n ar
P or e
P ter Sto G
f
igh e igh `a
f rth
H `b H lw
a
Po
Figure 9. Effect of location on walking speed. Bar chart depicting mean walking speed (m sÿ1)
within each location studied (see also table 1). Error bars indicate 1 standard error of the mean.
The effect of location was found to be highly significant ( p 5 0:001). However, separate analyses
on singletons and groups revealed a significant effect of location for groups, but not for people
walking on their own (see table 2).

Table 2. Walking speed by location.

Location Mean walking speed (m sÿ1 ) n

singletons groups singletons groups

High Petergate (before) 1.50 1.23 151 122

High Petergate (after) 1.51 1.37 584 409
Stonegate 1.50 1.33 171 38
Polwarth Gardens 1.53 1.42 839 299
Total 1.52 1.36 1745 868

introduced (1.37 m sÿ1 ), and than in both other sites studied. On the other hand,
walking speeds of groups in Polwarth Gardens, Edinburgh (1.42 m s ÿ1 ) were signifi-
cantly higher than those of all other survey locations. Groups' walking speeds recorded
in Stonegate and High Petergate after traffic restrictions did not differ significantly
from each other.
These environments differed according to two key, observable factors öthe presence
of vehicles, and the amount or proportion of space reserved for pedestrians öeither or
both of which may explain the differences in walking speed observed amongst groups
between locations. The presence of vehicles on its own did not appear to be the principal
factor: the volume of both traffic and cars parked at the kerbside was highest in the fast-
moving Polwarth Gardens, yet next highest in the slowest-moving High Petergate before
traffic was restricted. The most reasonable explanation seems to be the perceived
amount of space reserved for pedestrians, which was certainly the least in High
Petergate before traffic calming was introduced, exhibiting the narrowest pavements
seen in our sample (1.3 m) and a substantial proportion of space taken up by parked
cars. Pedestrians in Polwarth Gardens, on the other hand, had more space afforded
them in terms of pavement width (approx. 1.75 m) than in either High Petergate (1.3 m)
or Stonegate (1.35 m). Although such differences may not be a factor for singletons,
Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 819

the smaller pavements may compound the physical and/or attentional demands of
maintaining proximity with a companion while walking, resulting in significantly
slowed speeds for groups, but not singletons, in areas within which exclusive space
for pedestrians is limited.
3.2 Spacing behaviour
In the second part of this study, we investigated several aspects of microscopic
behaviour that relate to where pedestrians position themselves with respect to fea-
tures of their environment. In particular, we explored: (a) how people position
themselves with respect to pavement ^ road boundaries; (b) how much space they
maintain between themselves and their companion(s) while walking; and (c) the
extent to which differences in these position preferences could be explained by
the various personal, situational, and environmental characteristics we suspected
may be important in shaping pedestrians' movement decisions.
3.2.1 Microscopic position
To enable more effective comparisons between case-study locations, the microscopic
position of each pedestrian in our sample was defined in categorical terms rather than
absolute physical dimensions in space. These were: (1) middle of the pavement,
(2) pavement, closest to road edge, (3) pavement, closest to building edge, (4) middle
of the road, and (5) road, closest to the pavement edge. Taken together, the data as a
whole showed that most participants (82%) walked on the pavement most of the time
(see figure 10).
Not unsurprisingly, perhaps, location was found to have a significant effect on people's
positioning as they moved through space (see table 3, over): in particular, pedestrians
appeared significantly more likely to walk on the pavement in Polwarth Gardens (98%),

1200
Frequency

800

400

0
ge dl
e ge dl
e ge
ed id ed id ed
g m d m b
di
n
roa ker
il
bu

pavement road
Position in space

Figure 10. Microscopic position of pedestrians. Bar chart depicting proportions of pedestrians
occupying each of five positions in space within each location surveyed. Note how the vast
majority of pedestrians walked within pavement areas located at the margins of the space
(82%). Age, group size, and location, but not gender, were found to play a potential role in
determining position preferences (see table 3).
820 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

a traditional single-carriageway road bounded by pavements either side, compared with

Stonegate (46.3%), within which traffic is restricted to access only during the day.
Interestingly, the proportion of people walking in the road in High Petergate almost
doubled after traffic-restriction measures had been implemented (28.4% compared with
14.7%): this finding could reflect an increased likelihood of pedestrians venturing into
the road space as a result of significantly decreased traffic flow, and the removal of
barriers to entering the road presented by parked cars. Despite the increased tendency
for pedestrians to walk in the road space within traffic-restricted areas such as High
Petergate and Stonegate, it was noteworthy that the majority of pedestrians continued
to occupy the footways at the margins: even in Stonegate, for example, in the heart
of the pedestrianised footstreets area of York (see section 2), over half the population of
walkers (53.7%) continued to occupy the edges of the total space available to them.
Group size also appeared to have a sizeable effect on microscopic positioning (see
table 3). In general, groups were more likely than singletons to walk in the road (22.3%
compared with 15.2%) than on the pavement. Why this was the case is not clear, but
could be explained by the perception of people in groups that the pavement did not
afford them sufficient space to maintain proximity with their companion(s). Of those
who walked on the pavement, singletons tended to position themselves in the centre
(71%), suggesting people prefer approximately equal amounts of space on either side of
them. Individuals in groups, however, were more likely to walk within the road edge or
the building edge of the pavement (78.3%) compared with the centre (21.7%), suggest-
ing that pedestrians with companions prefer to walk side by side rather than one
behind another.
Table 3. Summary of data: microscopic position.

Variable Microscopic position: proportion of sample n

pavement (%) road (%)

Location
High Petergate (before) 85.3 14.7 273
High Petergate (after) 71.6 28.4 992
Stonegate 46.3 53.7 203
Polwarth Gardens 98.0 2.0 1108
Group size
Singleton (1) 84.8 15.2 1715
Group (2 or 3) 77.7 22.3 861
Age (approximate)
<16 98.2 1.8 112
16 ± 25 88.7 11.3 795
26 ± 50 77.6 22.4 1185
51 ± 64 77.5 22.5 320
>64 85.4 14.6 164
Gender
Female 84.4 15.6 1095
Male 80.4 19.6 1028
Mobility
Unencumbered 81.5 18.5 1230
With small bag or case 85.0 15.0 1011
With larger shopping bags or luggage 79.5 20.5 239
With small children, pram, or buggy 83.3 16.7 54
With mobility aid 90.5 9.5 21
Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 821

Age, gender, and mobility classification were also associated with different preferences
for positioning in urban spaces (see table 3). Children and young adults, for example,
were the least likely to walk in the road (1.8% and 11.3%, respectively) compared
with both older adult groups (22.4%) and the eldest age group (14.6%). Gender
appeared to be less important in determining individuals' positions in space, with
males only slightly more likely to walk in the road than females (19.6% and 15.6%,
respectively). Within our mobility classifications, those walking with a mobility aid
were less likely to walk in the road (9.5%) compared with those with larger shopping
bags (20.5%), no baggage (18.5%), small children (16.7%), or small bags (15.0%). Again,
it is interesting to note that people taking up the most space (in this case, people with
larger shopping bags) were the most likely out of all the groups to walk in the road
(20.5%).
3.2.2 Interpersonal spacing
The present study has already highlighted the importance of group size in determin-
ing the speed at which we prefer to walk, and where we choose to position ourselves
within the space available to us. In this section we investigate how much space
pedestrians maintain between themselves and their companions when walking, and
the extent to which this interpersonal distance may be influenced by factors such
as the gender, age, and mobility composition of the group, and the environment in
which they walk. Interpersonal distance between members of a group was measured
from the central point of each pedestrian on the ground (see figure 11). All measures
were taken as the mean of three distances recorded at the beginning, middle, and end
of each video clip in order to counteract any small variations in interpersonal
distance as groups traversed the study area.
The mean distance pedestrians maintained between themselves and their compan-
ion(s) was 0.85 m. This measure is very similar to the 0.75 m reported by Burgess
(1983). The distribution contained somewhat large variation (SD ˆ 0.33 m), and was
somewhat skewed towards shorter distances (see table 4; figure 12, over).
At least part of this variation can be attributed to the effect of group size: people
walking in groups of three maintained, on average, considerably greater distances

x y

(a)

x y

(b)

Figure 11. Measurement of interpersonal distance. (a) The interpersonal distance between
groups of two people was measured from the midpoint of each pedestrian on the ground (that
is, distance x ÿ y). (b) The interpersonal distance of groups of three people were taken as an
average of the two shortest distances between the three people, that is, ‰…x ÿ y† ‡ …y ÿ z†Š=2
(typically between the `central' pedestrian and his or her two companions). In all cases, three
interpersonal distance measures, recorded on the start, middle, and end frames of the video clip,
were averaged.
822 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

100

80

60
Frequency

40

20

0
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40
Interpersonal distance (m)

Figure 12. Distribution of interpersonal distances. Frequency distribution of each group's mean
interpersonal distance for our population as a whole (see caption to figure 11 for details). The
mean distance pedestrians chose to maintain between themselves while walking was 0.85 m
(n ˆ 415). The distribution was skewed towards shorter distances and showed higher standard
deviations than those recorded for walking speeds. Group size was found to be the most
significant determinant of interpersonal distance, although location and age were also reported
to have an effect (see table 4).
Table 4. Summary of data: interpersonal distance.

Variable Interpersonal distance (m) n

mean median SD minimum maximum

Group size
2 0.83 0.75 0.317 0.27 2.41 374
3 1.06 0.93 0.366 0.63 1.93 35
Location
High Petergate (before) 0.75 0.68 0.220 0.41 1.74 61
High Petergate (after) 0.83 0.77 0.293 0.41 1.93 196
Stonegate 0.83 0.80 0.261 0.49 1.60 20
Polwarth Gardens 0.91 0.78 0.398 0.27 2.41 139
Group gender
Female ‡ female 0.84 0.74 0.350 0.27 2.41 115
Female ‡ male 0.82 0.74 0.305 0.40 2.11 221
Male ‡ male 0.90 0.81 0.313 0.54 2.28 71
Group age
Children or children ‡ adults 0.90 0.76 0.415 0.45 2.41 46
Adults 0.83 0.75 0.305 0.27 2.28 343
Elderly or elderly ‡ adults 0.94 0.86 0.397 0.49 2.17 26

Total 0.85 0.76 0.325 0.27 2.41 415

between themselves compared with those walking in twos (1.06 m versus 0.83 m,
respectively): this difference, which may reflect differences in intimacy between com-
panions walking in twos and threes, was highly significant (Mann-Whitney U: z4:21 ;
p 5 0:001).
Location also had a significant effect on interpersonal spacing (Kruskall ^ Wallis:
w23 ˆ 8:32; p 5 0:05), with the shortest distances being observed in High Petergate
(before traffic restrictions) and the largest in Polwarth Gardens (0.75 m versus
Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 823

0.91 m, respectively). Again, this difference could be explained, at least in part, by

the differing amounts of pavement space afforded to pedestrians within each of the
environments studied.
Smaller differences were found between groups according to their gender and age
composition. In particular, all-male groups appeared to maintain significantly greater
distances between themselves than both all-female and mixed groups (0.90 m versus
0.84 and 0.82 m, respectively; Kruskall ^ Wallis: w22 ˆ 7:62; p 5 0:05). However,
although groups comprising only adults tended to maintain shorter interpersonal
distances compared with groups containing children or elderly pedestrians (0.83 m
versus 0.90 and 0.94 m, respectively), these differences were not statistically significant
(Kruskall ^ Wallis: w22 ˆ 1:23; p 4 0:50).
3.3 Relationship between speed and spacing preferences
Having examined various speed and position preferences of pedestrians across a range
of personal, situational, and environmental factors, we decided to investigate whether
any relationships exist between pedestrians' desired walking speed and their spacing
behaviour. An appreciation of how these may be related would prove helpful in the
development of agent-based pedestrian models in two important regards: first, in
providing a mechanism by which individual agents can be assigned values for several
parameters in a realistic way; and second, in establishing rules that govern how
individual agents will behave. If, for example, we found that faster walking speeds
were associated with a greater likelihood of walking in the road, we could attempt
to model this association by yoking the two variables together in assigning values
of desired walking speed and initial starting position within an environment, or
by assigning more `risky' or `aggressive' behaviours to faster-walking agents. If no
such association were found, modellers could be justified in assigning values of these
parameters independently.
Statistical analyses of our data revealed a small, but significant positive correlation
between walking speed and interpersonal distance (Spearman's r ˆ 0:102; p 5 0:05;
see figure 13), suggesting a tendency for interpersonal spacing to increase slightly with
increasing walking speed in the sample as a whole. However, we found no consistent
differences in walking speed according to microscopic position in space: people who
Interpersonal distance (m)

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Walking speed of group (m sÿ1 )

Figure 13. Relationship between walking speed and interpersonal distance. Scatter plot of walk-
ing speed (m sÿ1 ) as a function of interpersonal distance (m) for groups of two or three people
(n ˆ 415). A small, but statistically significant positive correlation (r ˆ 0:097; p 5 0:05) was
found between the two variables, suggesting a tendency for faster-moving pedestrians to leave
greater distances between themselves while walking.
824 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

walked in the road walked no faster, on average, than those who walked on the
pavement (1.47 versus 1.46 m sÿ1, respectively: t2573 ˆ 0:21; p 4 0:80). Taken together,
these findings suggest a weak, but complex relationship between pedestrians' chosen
walking speeds and their positioning behaviour with respect to salient features of
their environment ö in particular, pavement ^ road boundaries and their companions:
faster walking speeds do appear to be associated, albeit weakly, with greater space
requirements between companions, but not their overall position in space.

4 General discussion
In this paper we investigated the spontaneous walking speeds and spacing behaviours
of pedestrians in urban environments uncluttered by obstacles or other people. We
did this in order to appreciate better how people move when they are allowed the
freedom to select their position in space and the speed at which they walköparameters
central to all planning guidelines and agent-based models of pedestrian movement, yet
so far poorly addressed in the empirical literature. The few empirical studies carried
out in this area to date have tended to deal almost exclusively at the limits of human
movement behaviour, within highly congested and obstructed spaces. We also
attempted to elucidate the influence of various personal, situational, and environmen-
tal factors that may underpin the variation in pedestrians' movement preferences
between individuals and environments. We did this in order to understand better how
behaviour may vary between environments, and the extent to which any differences
reflect differences in the overall structure of the environment, or the characteristics of
the people that frequent them. Such an understanding is critical in assigning values
of various parameters to individual model pedestrians and the rules that act upon them
in any realistic, microscopic simulation model of pedestrian urban spaces.
The mean walking speed of individuals across our sample as a whole (1.47 m sÿ1 ) lay
towards the higher end of the range reported in previous studies (1.0 ^ 1.5 m sÿ1 ). This
may reflect overall differences in the pace of life and climate between European
compared with other cities; alternatively, the results may suggest that our participants
were able to select their own walking speed, and, consequently, that desired walking
speeds may be somewhat higher than expressed speeds recorded in many previous
studies. Spontaneous walking speeds for the sample as a whole were normally dis-
tributed about the mean, but varied systematically according to a range of personal,
situational, and environmental factors that characterised the journeys of our partici-
pants. Faster walking speeds, for example, had a significantly greater association with
singletons (compared with groups), males (rather than females), adults (rather than
children or the elderly), and those with no or few encumbrances (compared, say, with
those with shopping bags or mobility aids).
We also investigated the spacing preferences of pedestrians according to (1) where
they positioned themselves within the overall space available to them; and (2) how
much space they maintained between themselves and their companion(s) when walking
with others. We found, not surprisingly, that the majority of people walk on the
pavement most of the time. This was true even in locations where traffic was restricted,
although there was a tendency for more people to use the road in these areas than
those in which traffic flow was heavier. Group size was a further significant predictor
of positioning behaviour, with individuals walking in groups of two or three apparently
more likely to walk at the pavement margins rather than the centre, and in the road
rather than the pavement in general compared with singletons. Position was also found
to differ according to a range of other personal and situational factors, including
age, level of mobility, and, to a lesser extent, gender. These differences presumably
reflect differences in space requirements (those with large shopping bags, for example,
Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 825

were more likely than anyone else to walk in the road), and in degree of caution (the
youngest age groups were around ten times less likely than adults to leave the pavement).
The distance maintained between pedestrians when walking in groups (0.85 m)
was broadly similar to that reported by Burgess (approximately 0.75 m) twenty years
ago. The distribution of interpersonal distances demonstrated a considerable nega-
tive skew: this most likely reflected the proportionally greater number of pairs in our
sample, who maintained a significantly shorter distance between themselves and
their companion compared with triplets. This could be explained by a tendency for
greater intimacy among couples compared with triplets, as evidenced by the greater
likelihood of couples holding hands. Other factors which appeared to have an effect
on interpersonal distance were location (which we assume largely reflects differences
in pavement width, and thus space available for pedestrians) and, to a lesser extent,
the gender composition of the group.
Of course, it is not necessary for model agents to be ascribed such human
characteristics as gender or age in order for a microsimulation model to be capable
of mimicking realistic pedestrian behaviour: indeed, such a model would be impos-
sibly complex and not necessarily any more realistic as a result. However, it is
important to have an appreciation of what factors contribute most significantly to
our movement decisions, and how, in order to plan for and model them effectively.
From our results, we argue that group size, age, mobility, and the perceived space
allocated to pedestrians within an environment are the most important predictors of
individuals' movement behaviour in urban spaces, and which potentially vary the
most between different types of environment. As such, it is important that these
factors are taken into account when designing effective urban spaces for pedestrians,
or modelling the effects of putative design changes on pedestrian behaviour.
Group size was one of the most significant factors underpinning pedestrians' speed
and spacing preferences in the present study: not only did group size affect walking
speed, positioning, and interpersonal spacing preferences, but groups appeared to be
more significantly affected by the overall layout of their environment than singletonsö
at least according to the speed at which they chose to walk. This has important
implications in terms of planning for, and modelling pedestrians: a significant propor-
tion of walking journeys, particularly those associated with leisure activities such as
shopping or sightseeing, are completed by pedestrians walking with one or more
companions, yet the effects of walking in a group have, until now, not received much
attention in the academic or practical literature.
Our results provide strong support for the consideration of group dynamics in any
realistic design or model of pedestrian spaces in which significant proportions of the
population step out with a companion. It may be enough, for example, to model
groups as singular, extralarge agents with lower speed preferences and greater suscep-
tibility to environmental influences compared with single agents; on the other hand, it
is quite likely that other aspects of groups' movement behaviour, such as collision
avoidance, will differ in other, more fundamental ways (indeed, our ongoing research
provides strong evidence that this is the case), in which case it may be that the
modelling of groups' behaviour may benefit from a more sophisticated treatment.
Age and mobility were also found to be significant factors in both speed and
positioning preferences. Adults, for example, tended to walk more slowly with increas-
ing age, leave shorter distances between themselves and their companions when
walking, and were more likely than either the seemingly more cautious children or
the elderly to walk in the road. We also found that unencumbered pedestrians walked
significantly faster, and those walking with a mobility aid significantly slower, than
any other group. Interestingly, carrying large shopping bags was associated with the
826 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

greatest tendency to walk in the road, perhaps because the relatively narrow pavements
in our sample locations were not perceived to afford them enough space. Again, these
factors are important in planning and modelling terms: the yoking of factors like
slower preferred walking speed and more conservative positioning, for example, as
seen among the elderly or mobility impaired, should be taken into account in any
model that seeks to predict movement behaviour in environments containing high
proportions of pedestrians in these categories.
We have argued that the perception of space available for walking was the critical
factor underpinning differences in movement behaviour between study locations. The
locations were chosen for their similarity in terms of use (mixed residential/retail),
climate, and proximity to the city centre, but small differences in terms of vehicular
access and pavement width. Interestingly, there was no difference in walking speed
between these locations among the population of singletons: this suggested that the
presence of light to moderate traffic flow and small differences in pavement width are
not critical in determining the walking speed preferences of solo pedestrians. Signifi-
cant differences in walking speed between study locations were found, however, among
pedestrians walking with one or two companions: here, the smallest pavement widths
(1.3 m, in High Petergate) were associated with the lowest average speeds. Interestingly,
the implementation of a daytime traffic ban in High Petergate was associated with
a significant increase in groups' walking speed, and a doubling of the proportion of
pedestrians overall walking in the road. These results provide strong evidence for
a relationship between group size, perceived space, and walking speed.

5 Conclusions
Taken together, the findings presented here suggest a number of factors that appear to
be critical in shaping individuals' preferred movement preferences in urban spaces. The
results should prove useful both to designers and to modellers of urban spaces for
pedestrians in several important regards. First, our description of several of the most
fundamental elements of movement behaviour may be used by modellers to assign
realistic values to each modelled pedestrian according to a range of simple parameters
(for example, desired walking speed and starting position in space), and assist in
confirming the efficacy of simple behavioural rules. The systematic investigation of
which factors affect the values of these parameters (and how) also provides an insight
into how a realistic distribution of values might be chosen for a particular environment:
modelling a shopping street, for example, should take into account the greater propor-
tion of pedestrians taking up more space on the pavement (for example, as a result of
walking in groups, or transporting large shopping bags), and the effects this might have
on other aspects of behaviour.
Second, our results should prove useful not only in the calibration of movement
parameters by planners and modellers of pedestrian spaces, but also in highlighting a
number of behavioural phenomena that might be expected to emerge from any realistic
model of individual movement behaviour, such as the relatively greater influence of
environmental layout on the walking speed of groups as opposed to single pedestrians.
Finally, of course, in characterising and attempting to explain behaviours that
most closely represent those in `ideal' (or at least, uncongested) scenarios, we are
able to provide a more sound basis with which modellers may compare modelled, or
`observed' behaviours in order to estimate measures like the average delay experienced
by model agents in the simulation.
We believe that a more comprehensive understanding of how pedestrians negotiate
urban spaces is essential to underpin the development of models that aim to help in the
design of effective urban space, and recognise the importance of further empirical
Human movement behaviour in urban spaces 827

study in order to deepen such an understanding. Of particular salience, it seems, are

questions relating to how pedestrians negotiate obstacles, what factors attract or repel
pedestrians to or from a particular location, and the significance to pedestrians of any
differences between `ideal' and `actual' paths taken through space. Research in these
areas, to which we are currently contributing as part of the PEDFLOW project, should
prove of benefit to planners, policymakers, and modellers interested in creating more
pedestrian-friendly urban spaces for all of us to enjoy.
Acknowledgements. This work was supported by EPSRC grant GQ/M59792 awarded to J M Kerridge
and J Hine. Our most grateful thanks go to all members of the PEDFLOW steering group for
their support and advice throughout the project: we should particularly like to thank Julian Hine
(University of Ulster), Neil Johnstone (Halcrow Fox), Michael Carreno (Transport Research
Institute, Napier University), and our colleagues in York City Council and the City of Edinburgh
Council for helpful discussion and advice.
References
Al-Gadhi S A, Mahmassani H S, 1991, ``Simulation of crowd behavior and movement: fundamental
relations and application'' Transportation Research Record number 1320, 260 ^ 268
Batty M, 1997, ``Predicting where we walk'' Nature 388 19 ^ 20
Batty M, 2001, ``Agent-based pedestrian modelling'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 28 321 ^ 326
Blue V J, Adler J L, 1998, ``Emergent fundamental pedestrian flows from cellular automata
microsimulation'' Transportation Research Record number 1644, 29 ^ 36
Boles W, 1981, ``The effects of density, sex and group size upon pedestrian walking velocity''
Man ^ Environment Systems 11 37 ^ 40
Bowman B L, Vecellio R L, 1994, ``Pedestrian walking speeds and conflicts at urban median
locations'' Transportation Research Record number 1438, 67 ^ 72
Burgess J W, 1983, ``Interpersonal spacing between surrounding nearest neighbors reflects both
familiarity and environmental density'' Ethology and Sociobiology 4 11 ^ 17
Ciolek M T, 1978, ``Spatial arrangements in social encounters: an attempt at a taxomomy''
Man ^ Environment Systems 8 52 ^ 59
Coffin A, Morrall J, 1995, ``Walking speeds of elderly pedestrians at crosswalks'' Transportation
Research Record number 1487, 63 ^ 67
Dabbs J M, Stokes N A, 1975, ``Beauty is power: the use of space on the sidewalk'' Sociometry
38 551 ^ 557
Data Protection Act, 1998 Public General Actsö Elizabeth II chapter 29 (The Stationery Office,
London)
Fruin J J, 1971, ``Designing for pedestrians a level of service concept'' Highway Research Record
number 355, 1 ^ 15
Fugger T F, Randles B C, Stein A C, Whiting W C, Gallagher B, 2000, ``Analysis of pedestrian
gait and perception/reaction at signal-controlled crosswalk intersections'' Transportation
Research Record number 1705, 20 ^ 25
Galea E R, Galparsoro J M P, 1994, ``A computer based simulation model for the prediction of
evacuation from mass transport vehicles'' Fire Safety Journal 22 341 ^ 366
Gibson J J, 1979 The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA)
Habicht A T, Braaksma J P, 1984,``Effective width of pedestrian corridors'' Journal of Transportation
Engineering 110 80 ^ 93
Haklay M, O'Sullivan D, Thurstain-Goodwin M, Schelhorn T, 2001, ```So go downtown': simulating
pedestrian movement in town centres'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28
343 ^ 359
Helbing D, Molnär P, Farkas I J, Bolay K, 2001, ``Self-organizing pedestrian movement''
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28 361 ^ 383
Henderson L F, 1971, ``The statistics of crowd fluids'' Nature 229 381 ^ 383
Hillier B, Penn A, Hanson J, Grajewski T, Xu J, 1993, ``Natural movement: or, configuration
and attraction in urban pedestrian movement'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 20 29 ^ 66
Hoogendoorn S P, Bovy P H L, 2004, ``Pedestrian route-choice and activity scheduling theory
and models'' Transportation Research B 38 169 ^ 190
828 A Willis, N Gjersoe, C Havard, J Kerridge, R Kukla

Hoogendoorn S P, Daamen W, Bovy P H L, 2003,``Extracting microscopic pedestrian characteristics

from video data'', paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,
Washington, DC
Kerridge J, Hine J,Wigan M, 2001, ``Agent-based modelling of pedestrian movements: the questions
that need to be asked and answered'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28
327 ^ 341
Knoblauch R L, Pietrucha M T, Nitzburg M, 1996, ``Field studies of pedestrian walking speed
and start-up time'' Transportation Research Record number 1538, 27 ^ 38
Kukla R, Kerridge J, Willis A, Hine J, 2001, ``PEDFLOW: development of an autonomous agent
model of pedestrian flow'' Transportation Research Record number 1774, 11 ^ 17
Kukla R,Willis A, Kerridge J M, 2003, ``Application of context-mediated behavior to a multi-agent
pedestrian flow model (PEDFLOW)'', paper presented at the Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting, Washington, DC; copy available from the authors
Kwon Y, Morichi S, Yai T, 1998, ``Analysis of pedestrian behavior and planning guidelines with
mixed traffic for narrow urban streets'' Transportation Research Record number 1636, 116 ^ 123
Lam W H K, Morrall J F, Ho H,1995,``Pedestrian flow characteristics in Hong Kong'' Transportation
Research Record number 1487, 56 ^ 62
Lovas G G, 1994, ``Modeling and simulation of pedestrian traffic flow'' Transport Research B 6
429 ^ 443
Makris D, Ellis T, 2002, ``Path detection in video surveillance'' Image and Vision Computing 20
895 ^ 903
Polus A, Schofer J L, Ushpiz A, 1983,``Pedestrian flow and level of service'' Journal of Transportation
Engineering 109 46 ^ 56
Pushkarev B, Zupan J M, 1975 Urban Space for Pedestrians (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
Rotton J, Shatts M, Standers R, 1990, ``Temperature and pedestrian tempo: walking without
awareness'' Environment and Behaviour 22 650 ^ 674
Teknomo K, Takeyama Y, Inamura H, 2001, ``Measuring microscopic flow performance for
pedestrians'', paper presented at the 9th World Conference on Transport, Seoul, Korea;
copy available from the authors
TRB, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
Turner A, Penn A, 2002, ``Encoding natural movement as an agent-based system: an investigation
into human pedestrian behaviour in the built environment'' Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design 29 473 ^ 490
Virkler M R, 1998, ``Prediction and measurement of travel time along pedestrian routes''
Transportation Research Record number 1636, 37 ^ 42
Willis A, Kukla R, Hine J, Kerridge J M, 2000, ``Developing the behavioural rules for an agent-
based model of pedestrian movement'' Proceedings of the European Transport Conference,
Cambridge, UK P445, 69 ^ 80, Association for European Transport, Vernon Mews, Vernon
Street, London W14 0RL
Willis A, Kukla R, Kerridge, J M, Hine J, 2002, ``Laying the foundations: the use of video footage
to explore pedestrian dynamics in PEDFLOW'', in Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics
Eds M Schreckenberg, S D Sharma (Springer, Berlin) pp 181 ^ 186

ß 2004 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain

View publication stats