Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/transportation-
research-interdisciplinary-perspectives

Walkability and importance assessment of pedestrian facilities on central

business district in capital city of Indonesia
Agah Muhammad Mulyadi a, Atmy Verani Rouly Sihombing b, *, Hendra Hendrawan c,
Anita Vitriana d, Anjang Nugroho e
a
Regional Planning, Research and Development Agency, Cimahi 40513, Indonesia
b
#1, Department of Civil Engineering, Politeknik Negeri Bandung (POLBAN), Bandung 40012, Indonesia
c
West Java Research and Development Agency, Bandung 40286, Indonesia
d
West Java Research and Development Agency, Bandung 40286, Indonesia
e
Directorate General of Highways, Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Bandung 40294, Indonesia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The City of Jakarta has changed the paradigm of transportation development policy in order to prioritize pe­
Importance performance analysis destrians. This research aims to examine the walkability of Sudirman-Thamrin central business district. The
Pedestrian facilities research used the modified Global Walkability Index (GWI) method. This method was used because the pa­
Sidewalk
rameters have been adjusted to the characteristics of pedestrians in big cities in Asia. The findings of this research
Walkability
Sudirman-Thamrin road
show that revitalization of sidewalk using the road diet concept can increase walkability up to 38.98%. It also has
an impact on increasing the number of public transportation users by 15.41%.The Sudirman–Thamrin area, as a
pilot project location for sidewalk revitalization, can be used as an example to be applied in other locations. The
findings of this research for international readers can be used as lessons on how an area that was previously a car
oriented city has turned into an area that prioritizes pedestrians which also has implications for increasing the
value of walkability and public transportation users. Furthermore, the walkability parameters were grouped into
four aspects to find out the correlation between walkability and the four aspects. In previous GWI research, the
analysis of this correlation was not conducted. According to the IPA results, four parameters were considered
important and high performance. In addition, the results of the correlation test analysis showed that the
accessibility and supporting facilities were considered having a strong relationship with walkability. On contrary,
safety aspect and convenience aspect were considered having a low relationship with walkability.

Introduction increase pedestrian interest and walkability (McCormack et al., 2012).

The construction of large-scale new sidewalks has started since 2016,
The Government of Jakarta has changed the paradigm of trans­ and it achieved a sidewalk length of 48 km. Moreover, in 2017, 2018,
portation development policy in order of priority (1) pedestrians and and 2019, the construction of new sidewalks reached 79 km, 118 km,
cyclists, (2) public transportation, (3) environmentally friendly vehicles, and 84 km, respectively. In 2020, it was targeted that new sidewalks
and (4) private vehicles. This paradigm shift is in line with the vision of would be built along 97 km. However, the realization of the construction
Jakarta City towards a Walkable City in 2022. To realize a walkable city, of new sidewalks was only 10 km long because the budget was affected
the Jakarta Government targets to build 146 km of new sidewalks listed by the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic in Jakarta (DKI Jakarta
in the Jakarta Regional Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMD) every Provincial Government, 2021). The new sidewalk has better material
year (DKI Jakarta Provincial Government, 2017). quality than the previous sidewalk, such as sidewalk surface using
With the escalating numbers of the pedestrians along with the granite or stamped concrete. The new sidewalk has supporting sidewalk
vigorous public transportation provision, Jakarta Government has built facilities, such as trees, pedestrian lighting, chairs, bollards, trash cans,
new sidewalks massively in several areas in Jakarta. Previous studies wayfinding, and underground utility boxes to relocate utility cables.
have shown that a large investment in sidewalk construction will The construction of new sidewalks in Jakarta is in line with the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: atmyvera@polban.ac.id (A. Verani Rouly Sihombing).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100695
Received 19 February 2022; Received in revised form 2 October 2022; Accepted 2 October 2022
Available online 6 October 2022
2590-1982/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

increase in Transjakarta BRT passengers. In 2015, the number of (Gota et al., 2008). Walkability plays a role in active commuting and
Transjakarta BRT passengers reached 102.950.384 and had increased by plays a role in encouraging the integration of urban transportation
more than 156 % in 2019 with the total passengers of 264.032.780 (DKI (Dovey and Pafka, 2020) (Kim et al., 2020). A walkable environment is a
Jakarta Goverment, 2020). The increase in Transjakarta BRT passengers crucial factor in encouraging the active use of transportation (Lefebvre-
was due to the changing paradigm of the Jakarta Government in Ropars et al., 2017). Another study shows that a walkable mixed-use
prioritizing pedestrians and public transportation. For this achievement, development has a positive impact on public transport users because
Jakarta government won the Sustainable Transport Award (STA) in they can move easily in the area (Y. Wang et al., 2016). A walkable city
2021, by surpassing 27 other big cities in the world. STA is an annual environment will encourage commuters by using public transportation
award event that evaluates mobility improvements and innovations in (Besser and Dannenberg, 2005); (Lachapelle, 2015). A walkable city as
improving a city’s transportation system. (Institute for Transportation the main policy of a city can improve the health of city residents and
and Development Policy, 2021). The improvement of public trans­ reduce traffic congestion (Moura et al., 2017).
portation system has shown a significant impact on pedestrian move­ In the previous Global Walkability Index (GWI) research conducted
ments (Marisamynathan and Perumal, 2014). Pedestrian flow volume is by Krambeck, the parameters of the Walkability Index were determined
affected by the accessibility to public transportation and land use pat­ with the equal weight of each parameter, then in the research conducted
terns (Lee, 2013). This research is important because of how the para­ by Gota from CAI Asia, GWI parameters were modified to make it more
digm shift of the city of Jakarta in prioritizing transportation suitable to be applied in most big cities in Asia and each parameter were
development makes the city of Jakarta more walkable and at the same weighted. The weighting is important so that the importance of each
time increases the public transportation user, and decreases congestion indicator can be interpreted, so that it has an impact on the ranking of
rate. This achievement can be used as a lesson for other big cities in Asia, each indicator (Becker et al., 2017). The weights that are assumed to be
especially in developing countries. the same will have risk because they equate the significance, reliability,
In addition, new sidewalks with a width of 8 m to 12 m were built and characteristics of the indicators because they treat each indicator
along Sudirman-Thamrin road in welcoming the 2018 Asian Games. the same (Hlavsa, 2010). The method developed by Gota is called the
Large space of the sidewalk has been proven to be useful in relating modified GWI method. Furthermore, in this current study, the Walk­
layout to the volume of activity (Zacharias, 2001). Improving sidewalks ability Index parameters are grouped into four aspects to determine the
and corridors could offer many benefits, such as better living and correlation with walkability, such as accessibility aspects, supporting
working environments, an enhanced sense of pride in the community, facilities aspects, convenience aspects, and safety aspects influencing
and alternative transportation options (Shaaban, 2019). A minimum walkability. In previous modified GWI research, the analysis of this
sidewalk width of 2.5 m with the number of vehicle lanes not more than correlation was not conducted. In addition, this current research shows
2 lanes for each direction is an indicator in the walkability assessment which parameters have a close relationship with walkability.
(Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2021). In the This paper aims to measure walkability index based on 9 parameters
walkability assessment, the indicators that are often used to assess on the modified GWI after sidewalk revitalization and to determine the
walkability are obstructions on the sidewalk and width of the sidewalk level of importance and performance of the new sidewalk on Sudirman-
(Arellana et al., 2020). The widening of the sidewalk was done by Thamrin road based on the perception of pedestrians. In addition, it also
reducing one lane for motorized vehicles, as shown in Fig. 1. identifies the correlation between walkability and accessibility aspects,
The walkability assessment uses the Global Walkability Index (GWI) supporting facilities aspects, convenience aspects. In previous modified
method which has been modified by Gota from Clean Air Initiative for GWI research, the analysis of this correlation was not conducted. The
Asian Cities (CAI-Asia), so that it is more suitable for the conditions of novelty of this research is to find the relationship between walkability
big cities in Asia, which tend to have more pedestrians than other areas and the four aspects that affect walkability. The purpose of this research

Fig. 1. (a) Construction of new sidewalk at Hotel Indonesia roundabout; (b) Construction of new sidewalk at Tosari area; (c) New sidewalk at Tosari area; (d) New
sidewalk at Gelora Bung Karno area.

2
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

will answer several research questions such as how revitalization of number of parameters were modified because these nine parameters are
pedestrian facilities can increase the value of walkability; level of easier to apply in big Asian cities that have a relatively high pedestrian
satisfaction and level of importance of pedestrian facilities; and the volume. These nine parameters are considered applicable to describe the
correlation between accessibility aspects, supporting facilities aspects, walkability index in big cities in Asia (Gota et al., 2008). Thus, this
safety aspects, and comfort aspects in influencing walkability. method was chosen as a method for assessing the Walkability Index in
Jakarta.
Conceptual of walkability In the modified GWI method, data assessment can be conducted
either subjectively or objectively, or a combination of both. There are
Theoretical background quantitative and qualitative data that can be used in the assessment of
walkability in urban areas in Indonesia. Thus, walkability assessment
Pedestrian facilities are an element of the urban transportation sys­ can be conducted comprehensively and also does not require much
tem. The sidewalks should be well planned to meet pedestrian needs. adjustment when used in a different study area from the original study
The sidewalk must meet standard on four essential aspects, such as area (Maghelal and Capp, 2011; Vale et al., 2016). In this study, the data
accessibility, supporting facilities, security, and convenience (Ministry collection was through a subjective approach only based on data
of Public Works and Housing, 2018). Urban environments continuously collected through respondents’ perceptions. Respondents’ perceptions
expand and mutate in terms of the size of urban areas, the number of were considered to know more about the condition of the pedestrian
people commuting daily, and the number of options for personal facilities that they often pass. The sample taken was respondents with
mobility (Ivanova et al., 2016). commuter trips or respondents with repeated trips in CBD area. Several
Walking is an environmentally friendly mode of transport for short walkability methods were developed in various countries. There are
trips. Walking makes people healthy because it burns calories and does various methods to calculate Walkability index that are currently based
not emit greenhouse gases (Wicramasinghe and Dissanayake, 2017). on the classification of subjective, objective, qualitative, and quantita­
The concept highlighted in walkability is the evaluation of infrastructure tive data are shown in Table 1.
for walking as a transportation mode and the sidewalk condition based In the modified GWI method, the weight was determined by identi­
on pedestrians’ perspective. The most important factors affecting pe­ fying priorities for improving pedestrian facilities. Respondents were
destrians’ perception of walkability were related to the built envelop on given a questionnaire to provide an assessment score. There were 2, 4, 8,
either side of the streets (Singh, 2016). Walkability is a complex and and 10 for the first, second, third, fourth priority, and so on. The results
somewhat nebulous set of capacities embodied in any urban of the assessment are based on the respondent’s priorities, there were (1)
morphology, and it should not be conflated with nor derived from actual Width and cleanliness of the sidewalk, (2) Eliminate obstacles that
levels of walking (Dovey and Pafka, 2020). interfere with pedestrian movement on the sidewalk. (3) Increasing
Walking is correlated with both improved physical and emotional pedestrian lights, (4) Reducing traffic speed on highways, (5) Ease of
health. However, walking behavior is often heavily influenced by accessibility for persons with disabilities, and (6) Expanding crossing
environmental conditions (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2020). Walkability
has been linked to the quality of life in many ways (Rogers et al., 2011).
Good quality of sidewalk is perceivably required because it has some Table 1
influences on short distance pedestrians’ decision in choosing their Walkability index method based on data classification.
transportation mode. Furthermore, walkability is an interaction be­ Method Types of Data Classification
tween pedestrian facilities and support for the pedestrian environment Objective Subjective Qualitative Quantitative
as a whole (Krambeck and Shah, 2005), where the pedestrian environ­
Walkability Index X X X X
ment must facilitate communities in accessing them, be safe, and not (Bradshaw, 1993)
make it difficult for pedestrians (Leather et al., 2011). The most Walkability Permeability X X
important sidewalk attributes were physical separation from traffic, Indices (Allan, 2001)
sidewalk amenities, sidewalk width, sidewalk continuity, and sidewalk Walkability Checklist (U. X X
S DOT, 2003)
cleanliness (Majumdar et al., 2021). There are five way to making cities
Walkability Audit Tool X X X X
more walkable, i.e. (1) walking audits, (2) complete streets, (3) revi­ Dannenberg et al.
talization projects, (4) healthy corridors, and (5) health in all policies (2005)
(Wiedt, 2015). Global Walkability Index X X X X
The Global Walkability Index (GWI) is a walkability calculation (Krambeck and Shah,
2005)
concept that was originally developed by taking research locations in Build Environment Index X X
Beijing, Washington DC, and New Delhi. GWI stated that there were 14 for Walking
indicators related to walkability, namely: (1) proportion of road acci­ (Rodríguez, 2006)
dents involving pedestrian facilities; (2) pedestrian conflicts; (3) safety Walkability Surveys in X X X X
Asian Cities (Gota
of crossing facilities; (4) perceptions of safety and crime; (5) behavior of
et al., 2008)
motorized vehicles; (6) maintenance and cleanliness of sidewalks; (7) Walkability Index (Frank X X
facilities for people with disabilities; (8) supporting facilities; (9) side­ et al., 2009)
walk obstruction; (10) availability of crossing facilities; (11) funding for HPE’s Walkability Index X X X
the construction of pedestrian facilities; (12) availability of technical (Hall, 2010)
Walkability Checklist X X X X
guidelines related to pedestrian facilities; (13) pedestrian safety regu­ (Walk San Diego,
lations; and (14) pedestrian conflicts (Krambeck and Shah, 2005). 2011)
The Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) researched the Walkability Index X X
walkability assessment method. In that research, there were 14 param­ (McCormack et al.,
2012)
eters in the GWI that were modified to 9 parameters affecting the
Walkability and X X X
Walkability Index. Thus, five parameters were not used, namely: (1) the Bikeability (Horacek
proportion of road accidents involving pedestrian facilities; (2) funding et al., 2012)
for the construction of pedestrian facilities; (3) the availability of tech­ Walkability Assesment X X
nical guidelines related to pedestrian facilities; (4) pedestrian safety Tool (O’Hanlon et al.,
2016)
regulations; and (5) the level of reach of pedestrian facilities. The

3
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

locations. The surprising result was that crossing facilities are the least Table 3
considered priority parameters by respondents. More than 4,500 pe­ Sidewalk assessment.
destrians were interviewed in the 13 cities. They were asked to rate the Walkability Index (WI) Category Sidewalk Assessment
walkability of a specific area, to describe what makes a good pedestrian
WI ≥ 70 Green Highly walkable
environment, as well as to identify specific improvements that they 50< WI <70 Amber Waiting to walk
would want in their walking environments. Respondents provide an­ WI ≤ 50 Red Not walkable
swers regarding differences in priorities for improvement in pedestrian
Source: Gota et al., 2008.
infrastructure and facilities. (Gota et al., 2008). Furthermore, by
considering respondents’ perceptions, the weighting was determined as
non-BRT, MRT underground trains, and KRL commuter line trains.
shown in Table 2. In addition, to simplify data processing, the nine
Therefore, Sudirman-Thamrin road was chosen to assess how well the
parameters were coded from P1 to P9.
walkability concept is applied in the area. Five locations were chosen in
Furthermore, based on the weight of each of these parameters, the
the area, i.e (1) the Plaza Indonesia area, (2) HI roundbout area, (3)
Walkability Index was grouped based on the green, amber and red cat­
Tosari area, (4) Skate Park area, and (5) GBK area, because they have a
egories which are shown in Table 3 (Gota et al., 2008).
high number of pedestrians and the sidewalks that are connected to
public transportation such as MRT stations and TransJakarta BRT bus
Hypothesis stops. In addition, the GBK area and Skate Park area were visited by
many pedestrians to exercise. The Sudirman-Thamrin Corridor repre­
Based on the background and objectives of this study, the hypotheses sents the urban characteristics of big cities in Asia, which in that area has
in this study are (1) the revitalization of pedestrian facilities as a pilot a higher number of pedestrians than other areas in Jakarta.
project has a positive impact on the value of walkability, (2) the level of This area was chosen because prior to the revitalization of pedestrian
satisfaction and interest of pedestrians has a positive impact on the value facilities, this area was the location of previous walkability research
of walkability, and (3) there is a close relationship between accessibility with the same assessment method. In the previous research, data
aspects, supporting facilities aspects, comfort aspects, and comfort as­ collection was done by means of observation and interviews with pe­
pects from pedestrian facilities with the value of walkability. destrians with a research instrument containing statements about 9
modified GWI parameters. Based on the similarity of the use of the 9
Methods modified GWI parameters and the similarity of the research locations,
the results between before and after the revitalization of pedestrian fa­
Survey location cilities can be compared. Previous research in 2015 found that the
walkability index was relatively lower about 64 and 71 at Sudirman
The Sudirman-Thamrin Road corridor was chosen for the research road and Thamrin Road, respectively. The category of assessment of the
location because it is the biggest financial district in Jakarta, which has sidewalk was “walkable” on Thamrin Road and “waiting to walk” on
more frequent pedestrians than other areas and it was a recently revi­ Sudirman Road (Ridhani and Christanto, 2015).
talized location to welcome the 2018 Asian Games. At this location, for The Sudirman-Thamrin road area is important to assess because as a
the first time, the city of Jakarta implemented high standards in pilot project area, it is used as an example that pedestrian revitalization
pedestrian facilities, in terms of sidewalk width, sidewalk supporting can increase walkability, so that the area becomes a trigger for other
facilities (amenities), and the quality of the materials used. So that areas to revitalize sidewalks. The location of Sudirman-Thamrin Road in
Sudirman-Thamrin road is a pilot project area for the construction of the Central Business District area in Jakarta is shown in Fig. 2.
pedestrian facilities. In addition, Sudirman-Thamrin road is served by There were two survey locations at Thamrin Road, i.e., the Plaza
various modes of transportation such as Transjakarta BRT, Metrotrans Indonesia area, and the Hotel Indonesia roundabout area. In addition,
three survey locations at Sudirman road, they were Skate Park area,
Table 2 Tosari area, and the Gelora Bung Karno (GBK) area, as shown in Fig. 3.
Nine parameters of walkability assessment.
Parameter Code Remarks Weight Method of collecting data
Pedestrian conflicts with P1 Pedestrian conflicts with bicycles, 15
other modes of motorbikes and cars. The data was collected by distributing questionnaires and inter­
transportation
viewing pedestrians in five locations on Thamrin-Sudirman road. Data
Availability of sidewalk P2 Availability of sufficient sidewalk, 25
surface quality, and cleanliness. was collected in September 2019 from 200 respondents. Questionnaires
Availability of pedestrian P3 Availability of pedestrian crossing 10 were distributed to pedestrians, especially in park areas such as the GBK
crossings facilities, such as zebra cross, area and Skate Park area. Data collection by means of questionnaires
pelican cross, pedestrian overpass were conducted to evaluate each variable based on the users’ percep­
and pedestrian underpass
Safety of pedestrian P4 Safety when crossing the road 10
tions by using a five rating scale, scored 1 to 5. In the previous walk­
crossings ability research by Gota et al., the assessment was conducted by
Motorist Behavior P5 The behavior of motorist to the 5 surveyors. Meanwhile, in the current study, the assessment was con­
pedestrians by giving priority ducted by the respondents. However, the similarity is that both re­
Supporting facilities P6 Availability of supporting 10
searches used the same 9 parameters, namely the modified GWI
(amenities) pedestrian facilities such as
pedestrian signs, pedestrian parameter.
marking, chairs, wayfinding, green In addition, questionnaires were also distributed on sidewalks which
hedge, trees, and trash cans. was connected to public transportation facilities, such as in front of MRT
Infrastructure for P7 Availability of facilities for 10 stations, KRL Commuter line train stations, Transjakarta BRT bus stops,
disabilities disabilities such as tactile paving
and sidewalk ramp.
and Metrotrans Non-BRT bus stops. The respondents’ criteria are re­
Sidewalk obstruction P8 There are permanent or temporary 10 spondents with commuter trips or respondents with repeated trips and
obstacles on the sidewalk. they had a lot of walking experience on the Sudirman Thamrin road.
Security from Crime P9 Safety for pedestrian from the 5 This data collection used a sampling method by means of purposive
threat of crime, especially at night.
sampling. In this method, sampling is conducted randomly based on the
Source: Gota et al., 2008. limits determined by the researcher. Purposive sampling, also known as

4
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

Fig. 2. Sudirman – Thamrin road on central business district area.

Fig. 3. (a) Sidewalk at Plaza Indonesia area, Hotel Indonesia roundabout area, and Tosari area; (b) Sidewalk at Skate Park area; and (c) Gelora Bung Karno area.

judgment, selective or subjective sampling is a reliable random sampling surprising because the survey location was in the CBD area. The
method based on the justification and criteria of the researcher to Sudirman-Thamrin Corridor area is an area that is very familiar to re­
determine the sample population to participate in the study (Black, spondents because the area is a CBD area which has many parks and its
2013; Saunders et al., 2019). pedestrian facilities have been revitalized which has very wide side­
At this stage, respondents were asked to fill out a questionnaire walks between 8 and 12 m. There are various modes of public trans­
containing 9 modified GWI parameters. The nine statements were about portation, these conditions can attract pedestrians to visit this area.
(1) pedestrian conflicts with other modes of transportation, (2), avail­
ability of sidewalk, (3) availability of pedestrian crossings, (4) safety of Method of analysis
pedestrian crossings, (5) motorist behavior, (6) supporting facilities
(amenities), (7) infrastructure for disabilities, (8) sidewalk obstruction, The research used the modified GWI method, since it is more suitable
and (9) security from crime. For each question, a rating was given on a for the conditions of cities in Asia. This method was done perceptually
scale of 1 to 5. A rating of 5 indicates the best condition, while a rating of by researchers and respondents to assess walkability. These nine pa­
1 indicates the worst condition. To appreciate the respondents who have rameters were considered applicable to describe the walkability index in
filled out the questionnaire, souvenir pens were given by the surveyor big cities in Asia. (Gota et al., 2008). Further research is needed to adjust
team. Table 4 shows the respondents’ profiles based on collected data. these nine parameters. The qualitative analysis was used to assess
Respondent profile data shows that the majority of respondents are walkability and the parameters. The method for assessing each param­
women, then the majority of age categories are in the range of 26–35 eter was based on the user’s perception by using a five rating scale with a
years, and 36–46 years. Furthermore, the majority of educational value of 1 to 5. Five rating scale data were obtained from the perception
backgrounds are undergraduate, high school, and diploma by 30.5 %, of respondents, then the results of the five rating scale were calculated
30 %, and 26 % respectively. Meanwhile, the majority of salaries are in on average at each location and each parameter. Furthermore, to find
middle income (IDR 4,000,000-IDR 7,000,000 or USD 285.71-USD 500) out the increase in the value of walkability due to sidewalk revitaliza­
and also high income, i.e (>IDR 7,000,000 or > USD 500) by 44 % and tion, a before and after comparison analysis was carried out. Previous
40 % respectively. Furthermore, in the occupational category, the ma­ research in 2015 found that the walkability index was relatively lower
jority is private employees at 44 %. The data shows that the majority of about 64 and 71 at Sudirman road and Thamrin Road, respectively
respondents are workers in that area and the respondents are in pro­ (Ridhani and Christanto, 2015).
ductive age. Furthermore, the majority of respondents have 33.5 % and To calculate the average value of the importance and performance,
27 % travel purposes for work and sightseeing, respectively. This is not the score was multiplied by 20 to get the Walkability Index for each

5
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

Table 4
Respondent’s profile.
Characteristics N (%) Study Sample N (%)

Plaza Indonesia HI Roundbout Tosari Area Skate Park Area GBK Area

Respondents 40 (20) 40 (20) 40 (20) 40 (20) 40 (20) 200 (100)

1. Gender
Male 22 (55) 17 (42.5) 15 (37.5) 18 (45) 24 (60) 96 (104)
Female 18 (45) 23 (57.5) 25 (62.5) 22 (55) 16 (40) 104 (52)

2. Age
<17 4 (10) 6 (15) 5 (12.5) 4 (10) 5 (12.5) 24 (12)
17–25 6 (15) 8 (20) 7 (17.5) 10 (25) 2 (5) 33 (16.5)
26–35 12 (30) 6 (15) 8 (20) 10 (25) 12 (30) 48 (24)
36–45 11 (27.5) 13 (32,5) 12 (30) 14 (35) 10 (25) 60 (30)
46–55 3 (7.5) 4 (10) 5 (12.5) 1 (2.5) 8 (20) 21 (10.5)
56–65 3 (7.5) 2 (5) 2 (5) 1 (2.5) 3 (7.5) 11 (5.5)
>65 1 (2.5) 1 (2.5) 1 (2.5) – – 3 (1.5)

3. Education
Junior high School – 2 (5) 1 (2.5) 3 (7.5) 2 (5) 8 (4)
High School 5 (12.5) 9 (22.5) 10 (25) 20 (50) 16 (40) 60 (30)
Diploma 10 (25) 9 (22.5) 15 (37.5) 10 (25) 8 (20) 52 (26)
Undergraduate 19 (47.5) 15 (37.5) 11 (27.5) 6 (15) 10 (25) 61 (30.5)
Postgraduate 6 (15) 5 (12.5) 3 (7.5) 1 (2.5) 4 (10) 19 (9.5)

4.Monthly Income
Low (<IDR 4,000,000 or < USD 285.71) 4 (10) 8 (20) 4 (10) 12 (30) 4 (10) 32 (16)
Middle (IDR 4,000,000 – IDR 7,000,000 or USD 285.71 – USD 500) 12 (30) 17 (42.5) 17 (42.5) 20 (50) 22 (55) 88 (44)
High (>IDR 7,000,000 or > USD 500) 24 (60) 15 (37.5) 19 (47.5) 8 (20) 14 (35) 80 (40)

5. Occupation
Self Employed 10 (25) 5 (12.5) 12 (30) 5 (12.5) 8 (20) 40 (20)
Government Employed 10 (25) 5 (12.5) 9 (22.5) 2 (5) 4 (10) 30 (15)
Private Employed 15 (37.5) 22 (55) 12 (30) 15 (37.5) 24 (60) 88 (44)
Unemployed/Retirees 2 (5) 5 (12.5) 5 (12.5) 9 (22.5) 2 (5) 23 (11.5)
Student 3 (7.5) 3 (7.5) 2 (5) 9 (22.5) 2 (5) 19 (9.5)

6. Travel Purpose
Working 20 (50) 13 (32.5) 17 (42,5) 8 (20) 9 (22.5) 67 (33.5)
Shopping 7 (17.5) 11 (27.5) 7 (17.5) 2 (5) 3 (7.5) 30 (15)
Sightseeing 10 (25) 10 (25) 10 (25) 12 (30) 12 (30) 54 (27)
Exercising – 5 (12.5) 4 (10) 14 (35) 12 (30) 35 (17.5)
Other 3 (7.5) 1 (2.5) 2 (5) 4 (10) 4 (10) 14 (7)

parameter. The average score per location and per parameter was higher satisfaction of users (Ormanovic and Ciric, 2017). The IPA dia­
multiplied by 20 to get a Walkability Index on a scale of 100. Moreover, gram was systematically analyzed by considering each attribute in order
each of these parameters must be multiplied by the weight of each of its relative importance (Martilla and James, 1986). IPA is used as a
parameter to find out the overall Walkability Index, as listed in Table 2. management tool in assessing the importance and performance level of
Then, the results were divided by the number of locations. Thus, the products or services from the respondents’ perspective (Ferreira and
Walkability Index of each parameter can be identified, which formula is Fernandes, 2015).
shown in equation 1. Next, the measurement of the total Walkability IPA analysis was applied to find the importance and satisfaction with
Index is shown in equation 2. The total Walkability Index describes the performance for each parameter. IPA analysis was conducted to evaluate
walkability index of the entire area, which is used in the calculation each variable based on the questionnaire of the users’ perceptions by
Walkability Index for Sudirman-Thamrin Road area. using a five rating scale, scored 1 to 5. Data from the distribution of the

Σ(Weight of Parametern x Score of Parametern)

Walkability Index (WIp ) Parameter =
n

performance and important questionnaires on each walkability param­

Walkability Index Total (WIt ) = Σ(WI Parametern x Weightn) eter (P1-P9) were inputted in Excel software. Then, the average for each
item were calculated (there were 40 for each location) to get an average
The research also conducted a descriptive analysis to identify the score. Next, the average results for each indicator in the important and
importance and performance (IPA) of each parameter. IPA is a practical performance sections were tabulated. The results were plotted in a
and effective method that can help policymakers to identify service or Cartesian diagram composed of four quadrants automated using IBM
product elements whose allocation of resources could contribute to

6
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

Data processing and validity tests were conducted by using the IBM
SPSS software program (Statistical Product and Service Solution 25). A
simple correlation analysis method (bivariate correlation) was used to
determine the correlation among two variables and to measure the in­
fluence of the existing correlation. The simple correlation of coefficient
value showed the extent of correlation among two variables (Bland and
Altman, 2011).

Result

Walkability Index

The Walkability Index (WI) for each parameter was obtained by

asking the respondents to fill out the pedestrian perception question­
naire. The index was assessed by using a five rating scale with a range of
values between 1 and 5. The higher walkability index illustrated that the
pedestrian facilities on that parameter can accommodate the interests of
pedestrians. The walkability index results for each parameter are shown
in Table 6 and walkability Index based on weigh is shown in Table 7.
Fig. 4. Graph of IPA quadrant. . The results of the walkability index at the Plaza Indonesia area and
Source: Lin et al., 2009 the HI roundabout area were 88.60 and 88.95, respectively, and it was
categorized as “highly walkable”. The lowest value was P8. There was an
SPSS Statistic software. Thus, the spread of each parameter for each obstruction on the sidewalk which was caused by the presence of a
quadrant depended on the SPSS output. The graph of IPA quadrant is temporary plastic barricade causing reduced capacity to walk comfort­
shown in Fig. 4 (Lin et al., 2009). ably. In addition, the Tosari area had a walkability index of 85.60 and
Quadrant I is labelled “concentrate here” indicating that the was categorized as “highly walkable”. The lowest value was P4 about the
parameter has relatively high importance, but it is still not as expected safety of pedestrian crossing facilities, which was caused by a pelican
by the respondent, thus, it is needed to be improved soon. Quadrant II is cross with faded road marking quality and the behavior of motorist.
labelled “keep up the good work” showing that the parameter has Sometimes motorist did not prioritize pedestrians when crossing at a
relatively high importance and high satisfaction level. The variables crosswalk. The crosswalk location, relative to the origin and destination
included in this quadrant are deemed as a supporting factor for users’ of the pedestrian, was the most influential decision factor for pedestrians
satisfaction so that those variables should be kept. Quadrant III is deciding to go across at a designated location (Sisiopiku and Akin,
labelled “low priority” illustrating that the walkability related variable 2003). The assessment was based on the results of interviews with re­
has relatively low importance and is perceived by the users as super­ spondents and surveyor observations during data collection regarding
fluous with relatively high satisfaction. Quadrant IV is labelled “possible the condition of pedestrian crossing facilities.
overkill” stating that the walkability related variable diminishes due to However, the Skate Park area and Gelora Bung Karno (GBK) area had
below average importance and service level. a walkability index of 84.35 and 86.80, respectively, and it was cate­
Aspects related to pedestrian facilities are accessibility aspect, sup­ gorized as “highly walkable.” The lowest value at the skate park was P5.
porting facilities aspect, safety aspect, and convenience aspect (Ministry Motorists sometimes park their bikes on the sidewalk, so that it disturbs
of Public Works and Housing, 2018). Meanwhile, other research stated pedestrian’s flow. In addition, in the GBK area, the lowest values were
that the factors related to walkability are sidewalk condition, traffic P6 and P8. There were supporting facilities (amenities) and obstructions
safety, security, comfort, and attractiveness (Arellana et al., 2020). In on the sidewalk that made pedestrians uncomfortable, such as a lack of
addition, correlation analysis categorizes nine parameters into four as­ trees, and there were electricity boxes as obstructions on the sidewalk.
pects. The grouping was based on the similarity of parameter charac­ The presence of an obstacle object had often been deemed an obstruc­
teristics to the aspects shown in Table 5. tion to walking flow (Hidayat et al., 2012). So that the revitalization of
Pearson correlation was used in this research because it is a para­ the sidewalks on Sudirman Thamrin road shows an increase in the value
metric measurement that produces a correlation coefficient that serves of walkability compared to previous studies.
to measure the strength of the linear relationship between two variables. The revitalization of pedestrian facilities on Sudirman-Thamrin road
If the relationship between two variables is not linear, then the Pearson shows that the five locations are categorized as green or “highly walk­
correlation coefficient does not reflect the strength of the relationship able” with a range of values between 84.35 and 88.95. Previous research
between the two variables, even though the two variables have a strong in 2015 found the walkability index at Sudirman road was relatively
relationship. lower between 64 and 71 which included the “waiting to walk” and
“walkable” categories (Ridhani and Christanto, 2015). So that there is an
increase in the walkability index up to 38.98 % after the sidewalk
Table 5 revitalization.
Grouping of parameter to the aspects.
No Aspect Code Parameter Importance and performance analysis (IPA)
1 Accessibility Aspect P2 Availability of sidewalk
P7 Infrastructure for disabilities IPA at each location
2 Supporting Facilities P3 Availability of pedestrian crossings First location at Plaza Indonesia area, quadrant I showed the factors
Aspect P6 Supporting facilities (amenities)
that were considered important by respondents, but the results of the
3 Safety Aspect P1 Pedestrian conflicts with other modes of
transportation analysis showed low quality performance. Parameters included in
P4 Safety of pedestrian crossings quadrant I were P4 crossing safety, P6 supporting facilities, and P9 se­
P5 Motorist Behavior curity from crime. Pedestrian facilities that are a priority for improve­
P9 Security from Crime ment are the quality of zebra cross markings and supporting facilities
4 Convenience Aspect P8 Sidewalk obstacle
(amenities), such as pedestrian lighting. Furthermore, quadrant II

7
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

Table 6
Walkability index per parameter.
Parameter Plaza Indonesia Area H.I. Roundabout Area Tosari Area Skatepark Area GBK Area

Score (S) WI = S × 20 Score (S) WI = S × 20 Score (S) WI = S × 20 Score (S) WI = S × 20 Score (S) WI = S × 20

P1 4.60 92 4.60 92 4.60 92 4.26 85,2 4.60 92

P2 4.45 89 4.50 90 4.55 91 4.31 86,2 4.60 92
P3 4.40 88 4.50 90 3.70 74 4.40 88 4.50 90
P4 4.60 92 4.55 91 3.55 71 4.30 86 4.45 89
P5 4.20 84 3.90 78 3.95 79 3.56 71,2 4.60 92
P6 4.45 89 4.50 90 4.60 92 4.30 86 3.55 71
P7 4.50 90 4.60 92 4.50 90 3.80 76 4.40 88
P8 4.00 80 4.10 82 3.90 78 4.23 84,6 3.55 71
P9 4.45 89 4.25 85 4.60 92 4.40 88 4.50 90

Table 7
Total walkability index based on weigh.
Para-meter Weight (W) Plaza Indonesia Area H.I. Roundabout Area Tosari Area Skatepark Area GBK Area

WI WI × W WI WI × W WI WI × W WI WI × W WI WI × W

P1 15 92 13.80 92 13.80 92 13.80 85.2 12.78 92 13.80

P2 25 89 22.25 90 22.50 91 22.75 86.2 21.55 92 23.00
P3 10 88 8.80 90 9.00 74 7.40 88 8.80 90 9.00
P4 10 92 9.20 91 9.10 71 7.10 86 8.60 89 8.90
P5 5 84 4.20 78 3.90 79 3.95 71.2 3.56 92 4.60
P6 10 89 8.90 90 9.00 92 9.20 86 8.60 71 7.10
P7 10 90 9.00 92 9.20 90 9.00 76 7.60 88 8.80
P8 10 80 8.00 82 8.20 78 7.80 84.6 8.46 71 7.10
P9 5 89 4.45 85 4.25 92 4.60 88 4.40 90 4.50
WI total 88.60 88.95 85.6 84.35 86.8
Category Green Green Green Green Green
Assesment Highly Walkable Highly Walkable Highly Walkable Highly Walkable Highly Walkable

showed the factors that were considered important by respondents and perception of importance.
it had a high performance. These parameters included in quadrant II Third location at Tosari area, there were two parameters located in
were P1 Pedestrian conflict with other transportation modes, P2 Avail­ quadrant I, P6 Supporting facilities (amenities)and P9 Security from
ability of sidewalks, P3 Availability of pedestrian crossings, and P7 crime. These parameters become the priority for improving pedestrian
Infrastructure for persons with disabilities. These parameters had a good facilities. The supporting facilities (amenities) that need to be improved
perception from respondents, so it is necessary to maintain the perfor­ include trash cans, trees, and seats on the sidewalk. Furthermore,
mance of pedestrian facilities in the future. Moreover, pedestrian facil­ quadrant II showed the factors that were considered important by re­
ities that have a good perception are those that have the availability of spondents and they had a high performance. The parameters in quadrant
infrastructure for people with disabilities, such as tactile paving and II included P1 Pedestrian conflict with other transportation modes, P2
ramp slopes. Availability of sidewalks, and P7 Supporting infrastructure for people
Second location at Hotel Indonesia roundabout area, regarded as with disabilities. Pedestrian facilities considered to be high in perfor­
quadrant I, showed factors or attributes that were considered important mance were the width of the sidewalk which was able to accommodate
by respondents, but had low performance. Parameters in quadrant I pedestrian movement, especially at peak hours in the morning and
included P4 crossing safety and P6 supporting facilities. The first thing evening. Furthermore, quadrant IV showed parameters that were
to improve pedestrian’s crossing behavior is to adjust the green time for considered less important by respondents, but the parameters had a high
crossings. Respondents explained that the green time was not enough, so performance. The parameters in this quadrant covered P3 availability of
it was quite dangerous for pedestrians. Previous research mentioned that crossings and P5 behavior of motorists. This parameter improvement
pedestrians’ road crossing behavior affects traffic flow in various ways could be postponed since it had a low perception of importance.
(Patil and Khode, 2017) Pedestrian’s crossing behavior is an important At the Tosari bus stop location, there was a pedestrian crossing fa­
factor for pedestrian safety on roads. The pedestrian waiting time can be cility. Respondents considered the pedestrian crossing facility to be good
used to decide the need for pedestrian facilities in an area (Jain et al., because it was equipped with a countdown display for information on
2014). the remaining green time when crossing. Pedestrian route choice at the
Furthermore, quadrant II showed the factors that were considered strategic level and crossing location selection at the operational level
important by respondents and they had a high performance. These pa­ jointly determined the pedestrian moving path (Zheng et al., 2016).
rameters in quadrant II were P1 Pedestrian conflict with other trans­ Fourthly at the Skate Park area showed that quadrant I were P4 for
portation modes, P2 Availability of sidewalk, P3 Availability of crossing safety, P6 for supporting facilities, P8 for obstruction on the
pedestrian crossings, and P7 Infrastructure for disabled persons. sidewalk, and P9 for security from crime. Hence, these parameters
Pedestrian facilities having high performance was the availability of became the priority for improving pedestrian facilities in the future. One
sufficient sidewalk width. Thus, walking activities can be done of the priorities for improvement was security from crime. The location
comfortably and freely. In addition, Quadrant III showed parameters of the Skate Park was in the center of activities for bicycle and skate­
that were considered less important by respondents and it had a low board users so that sufficient lighting was needed. In addition, quadrant
performance. The parameters in quadrant III consisted of P8, the pres­ II showed that the parameters included in quadrant II were P1 Pedes­
ence of obstructions on the sidewalk, and P9, security from crime. These trian conflicts with other transportation modes, P2 Availability of
parameters had the perception of respondents stating that they could be sidewalk, and P3 Availability of pedestrian crossings. Thus, these pa­
postponed for performance improvement because they had a low rameters had a good perception from respondents and need to be

8
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

maintained in the next pedestrian facility development. The most sig­ facilities (amenities) and P8 Sidewalk obstacles. The improvement of
nificant thing was the availability of a sidewalk with a good pavement these parameters was low priority because it had a low perception of
surface and sufficient width of the sidewalk. There were no parameters importance. In addition, Quadrant IV showed the parameters were
included in quadrant III. Thus, no parameters were considered less considered less important by the respondents, but they had a high per­
important by respondents that had a low performance. However, formance. The parameter in this quadrant was P5 motorist behavior.
quadrant IV showed the parameters included in this quadrant, P5 This parameter improvement could be postponed because it had a low
motorist behavior and P7 infrastructure for people with disabilities. perception of importance. IPA quadrant at Sudirman-Thamrin Road is
These parameters had a low perception among respondents. There was shown in Fig. 6.
infrastructure for people with disabilities that had a high performance,
but it was not considered a priority by respondents. Correlation analysis
Fifth, at the Gelora Bung Karno (GBK) area, there were parameters of
P4 Crossing safety and P9 Safety from crime in quadrant 1. This in­ Accessibility aspect
dicates that one of the priority facilities that needed to improve was The result of correlation analysis between accessibility aspects and
security from crime and pedestrian crossing safety. The pedestrian walkability showed that P2 and P7 had a Pearson correlation value of
crossing facilities were used by cyclists and e-scooter riders. Hence, 0.798. It indicated the value of 79 % or strong correlation between the
pedestrians felt less comfortable and less safe. Furthermore, quadrant II accessibility aspect and walkability. The significance value was 0.004
showed that the factors were considered important by respondents and (0.004<0.05). Thus, H0 was rejected or there was a significant corre­
the results had a high performance. The parameters included in quad­ lation between accessibility aspects and walkability, such as the
rant II were P1 Pedestrian conflict with other modes of transportation, continuous availability of sidewalks and the continuous tactile paving
P2 Availability of pedestrian lanes, P3 Availability of crossings, P5 for people with disabilities. Sidewalk accessibility was designed well
Motorist behavior, and P7 Supporting infrastructure for people with with the concept of continuity that connects all transit transportation.
disabilities. Pedestrian facilities that needed to be maintained were The correlation between aspects of accessibility and walkability is
green hedges with a width of 4 m as a separator between motorized shown in Table 8.
vehicle lanes and sidewalks. IPA at five location shown in Fig. 5.
Supporting facilities aspect
IPA at Sudiman-Thamrin road The correlation analysis of the supporting facilities to the walkability
In general, IPA’s analysis of the entire Sudirman-Thamrin road (P3 and P6) presented the value of 0.639. Hence, it was a strong cor­
indicated that there was a parameter in quadrant I, P9 security from relation along with a significant value of <0.05. Thus, there was a sig­
crime, that was considered important by the respondents, but it had a nificant correlation between the supporting facilities’ aspects and
low performance. To make the pedestrians feel safer, more pedestrian walkability. Supporting facilities were available, such as pedestrian
lights and more CCTV cameras could be added. In addition, the pa­ crossings, trees, green hedges, pedestrian signs, wayfinding, and chairs.
rameters in Quadrant II were considered important by the respondents In addition, the existence of supporting facilities indicated that the area
and they had a high performance. There were P1 conflicts between had a high walkability. Previous research stated that implementing
pedestrians and other modes of transportation, P2 availability of side­ landscape buffers and planting trees in wide buffers may lead to more
walks, P3 availability of pedestrian crossing and P7 infrastructure for walking by improving people’s perceptions of pedestrian safety (Kweon
people with disabilities. Pedestrian facilities that were considered et al., 2021). The correlation between aspects of supporting facilities and
important were the availability of adequate sidewalk width and infra­ walkability is shown in Table 9.
structure for people with disabilities, such as continuously tactile paving
on the sidewalk and ramp slope. Safety aspect
Quadrant III showed that the parameters were considered less Safety aspects consisted of P1, P4, P5, and P9. The correlation value
important by the respondents, and they had a low performance. The between the safety aspect and walkability was 0.323. Thus, there was a
parameters in Quadrant III were P4 Crosswalk safety, P6 Supporting low correlation between the safety aspect and walkability. In addition,

Fig. 5. IPA Quadrant at (a) Plaza Indonesia area; (b) Hotel Indonesia roundabout area; (c) Tosari area; (d) skate park area; (e) Gelora Bung Karno (GBK) area.

9
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

Fig. 6. IPA quadrant at sudirman – thamrin road.

Table 8 Table 11
Correlation of accessibility aspect and walkability. Correlation of Convenience Aspect and Walkability.
Accessibility Aspect Walkability Convenience Aspect Walkability

Accessibility Aspects Pearson Correlation 1 0.798** Convenience Aspects Pearson Correlation 1 0.248**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.027
N 400 400 N 200 200

Walkability Pearson Correlation 0.798** 1 Walkability Pearson Correlation 0.248* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.027
N 400 400 N 200 200
** **
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

the safety aspect did not significantly influence the respondent’s deci­
Table 9
sion to use pedestrian facilities. The safety aspects consisted of pedes­
Correlation of supporting facilities aspect and walkability.
trian conflict with other modes of transportation, safety for pedestrians,
Supporting facilities Walkability motorist behavior, and security for crime. The correlation between as­
Aspect
pects of security and walkability is shown in Table 10.
Supporting facilities Pearson 1 0.639**
Aspects Correlation Convenience aspect
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.033
N 400 400
The analysis result showed that the influence of the convenience
aspect on walkability consisting of P8 had a Pearson correlation value of
0.248. Thus, there was a low correlation between the convenience
Walkability Pearson 0.639** 1
Correlation aspect and walkability. The convenience aspect included the presence of
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.033 obstructions on the sidewalk. Even though there were obstructions such
N 400 400 as utility boxes on the sidewalk, the respondents still felt comfortable
**
. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). walking on the sidewalk. The correlation between aspects of conve­
nience and walkability is shown in Table 11.

Table 10 Discussion
Correlation of safety aspect and walkability.
Security Aspect Walkability In the Walkability Index method studied by Krambeck, which de­
**
termines the same weight for each parameter, where the difference in
Security Aspects Pearson Correlation 1 0.323
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.018
weighting is recommended for future research, it is necessary to adjust
the weights so that they can identify how different each parameter is.
The weighting will indicate that the parameters that do not have a sig­
Walkability N 800 800
Pearson Correlation 0.323** 1 nificant weight will not significantly affect the Walkability Index. On the
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.018 other hand, parameters that have a significant weight will affect the
N 800 800 calculation of the Walkability Index. In a previous study of modified
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). GWI, weight measurements were not conducted using Multi Criteria
Analysis (MCA), so it is suggested that further research can be done
using the MCA method to determine the weight. MCA can be used to
assess effects, impacts, performance, and tradeoffs so that the weighting
of each indicator can be known (J. J. Wang et al., 2009).
The assessment of new pedestrian facilities on Sudirman-Thamrin

10
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

road has shown a Walkability Index at five locations categorized as and 2021, respectively, the congestion rate was 53 %, 36 %, and 34 %.
green or “highly walkable” with a range of values between 84.35 and So that in 2021, the city of Jakarta was ranked 46th most congested city
88.95. The sidewalk on Sudirman-Thamrin road was able to facilitate in the world. It significantly decreased compared to 2017, which was
the movement of pedestrians comfortably and safely. Thus, it can realize ranked 4th in the world (TomTom International BV, 2022). So the
walkable pedestrian facilities that can be used by all people, especially concerns about the concept of a road diet causing Jakarta to become
vulnerable sidewalk users such as the elderly, young children, and more congested are not proven. This achievement can be used as a lesson
people with disabilities. During surveyors’ observations, the availability for other big cities in Asia, especially in developing countries.
of facilities for disabilities such as tactile paving and sidewalk ramps
could be seen. In addition, respondents gave a high rating regarding the Conclusions
availability of disability facilities, especially at the Plaza Indonesia,
Hotel Indonesia roundabout area, and Tosari area locations, which had a The revitalization of pedestrian facilities as a pilot project has a
P7 rating, Infrastructure for disabilities, with a score above 90. positive impact on the value of walkability. The revitalization of
The higher the Walkability Index (WI), the higher performance of the pedestrian facilities on Sudirman-Thamrin road shows that the five lo­
sidewalk in accommodating pedestrian movement and the tendency of cations are categorized as green or “highly walkable” with a range of
movement that can be easily reached on foot and does not require a values between 84.35 and 88.95. Previous research in 2015 found the
motorized vehicle. The Walkability index concept is needed because it walkability index at Sudirman Road was relatively lower between 64
can identify the characteristics of sidewalks specifically based on pre­ and 71 which included the “waiting to walk” and “walkable” categories
determined parameters. That process makes it easier to prepare an (Ridhani and Christanto, 2015). So that there is an increase in the
evaluation for improvements. walkability index up to 38.98 % after the sidewalk revitalization.
Based on IPA results, there were four parameters that were consid­ The level of satisfaction and the level of interest in pedestrian facil­
ered important and had a high performance, (1) Pedestrian conflicts ities as a whole in the Sudirman-Thamrin road shows that there are 4
with other transportation modes, (2) Availability of sidewalk, such as parameters, (1) Pedestrian conflicts with other transportation modes,
sufficient sidewalk width, (3) Availability of pedestrian crossing, and (4) (2) availability of sidewalk, such as sufficient sidewalk width, (3)
Support facilities for people with disabilities, such as continuously Availability of pedestrian crossing, and (4) Support facilities for people
tactile paving on the sidewalk and ramp slope. These parameters must with disabilities, such as continuously tactile paving on the sidewalk and
remain relevant to performance. At the same time, there was a param­ ramp slope. Based on Fig. 6, the level of satisfaction of the four pa­
eter that was considered important, but it had a low performance. This rameters is in the range of 4.20–4.65 or 84 % – 93 %. Meanwhile, the
parameter was security from crime and required a performance level of interest in pedestrian facilities is in the range of 4.10–4.70 or 82
improvement to meet the needs of sidewalk users. % – 94 %.
The results of the correlation analysis indicated that the accessibility This study’s findings highlight that Walkability Index in CBD area
and supporting facilities aspects were considered to have a strong rela­ was correlated with several aspects, such as accessibility aspects, sup­
tionship with walkability. The accessibility aspects had been imple­ porting facilities aspects, convenience aspects, and safety aspects influ­
mented properly, such as the continuous of sidewalks and the encing walkability. The results of the correlation test analysis showed
continuous of tactile paving for people with disabilities. Sidewalk that the accessibility and supporting facilities were considered having a
accessibility was designed well with the concept of continuity that strong relationship with walkability. On contrary, safety aspect and
connects all transit transportation modes on Sudirman-Thamrin road. convenience aspect were considered having a low relationship with
Moreover, supporting facility aspects such as the availability of green walkability. In the GWI previous research, the analysis of this correla­
hedges, pedestrian signs, wayfinding, trash cans, and chairs had been tion was not conducted, so it can be said that this study supports pre­
implemented properly on the sidewalk to meet the expectations of vious studies. The novelty of this research is finding the relationship
sidewalk users. There were a high level of satisfaction and level of between walkability and the four aspects that affect walkability. Further
importance from respondents towards the increase in pedestrian facil­ research is needed to confirm these findings in other countries and areas.
ities in Sudirman Thamrin. The paradigm shift of the city of Jakarta in the priority of trans­
The success of improving the condition of pedestrian facilities on portation development, makes the city of Jakarta more walkable and at
Sudirman-Thamrin road has implications for urban transportation the same time increases the users of public transportation. Thus, the
development policies in Jakarta. Further development policies of Jakarta congestion rate was significantly decreased from period 2017 to
pedestrian facilities were conducted by applying the concept of a road 2022. This achievement can be used as a lesson learn for other big cities
diet, by widening the existing sidewalk, reducing the number of lanes for in Asia, especially in developing countries. The development of pedes­
motorized vehicles, and reducing on-site parking. street. The application trian facilities with the concept of walkability must be continuously
of the road diet concept makes Jakarta more walkable and public developed. It is necessary to periodically evaluate pedestrian facilities
transportation users also increase. Data shows that the number of pas­ that have been built using the walkability method.
sengers on TransJakarta BRT Corridor 1 passing through Sudirman The findings of this research show that revitalization of sidewalk
Thamrin road in 2017 was 24,870,678 passengers/year. In 2018 after using the road diet concept can increase walkability up to 38.98 %. it
the sidewalk was revitalized, TransJakarta BRT passengers increased to also has an impact on increasing the number of public transportation
28,703,262 passengers/year or an increase of 15.41 percent (DKI users in the Sudirman – Thamrin area by 15.41 % (DKI Jakarta Gover­
Jakarta Goverment, 2020). This research has limitations because it was ment, 2020). The Sudirman – Thamrin area, as a pilot project location
only conducted in the Sudirman-Thamrin road area, so further research for sidewalk revitalization, can be used as an example to be applied in
is needed in other locations. other locations. This study has limitations as it was only conducted in
Previous studies have shown that a road diet increases cyclists and CBD location. Further research is suggested to be conducted in other
reduces motor vehicle speed (Gudz et al., 2016). A study in China also revitalized locations to strengthen the findings. The findings of this
showed that the road diet increases the number of cyclists and makes it study for international readers can be used as lessons on how an area
easier for pedestrians to cross (Huang et al., 2019). Reducing the number that was previously a car oriented city has turned into an area that
of motorized vehicle lanes, reducing motor vehicle access, and reducing prioritizes pedestrians which also has implications for increasing public
on-street parking will make an area walkable (Knapskog et al., 2019). transportation users Furthermore, with a paradigm shift in the city
Data shows that in 2017 the congestion rate in Jakarta was 61 % and government that prioritizes pedestrians and public transportation,
was ranked the 4th most congested city in the world. In 2018 it dropped where traffic congestion shows a decline, where previously the city of
to 7th place with a congestion rate of 53 %. Furthermore, in 2019, 2020, Jakarta was ranked 46th most congested city in the world, it

11
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

significantly decreased compared to 2017, which was ranked 4th in the Gudz, E.M., Fang, K., Handy, S.L., 2016. When a Diet Prompts a Gain Impact of a Road
Diet on Bicycling in Davis. California. Transportation Research Record 2587 (1),
world (TomTom International BV, 2022).
61–67. https://doi.org/10.3141/2587-08.
Hall, R.A., 2010. HPE’s Walkability Index-Quantifying the. Pedestrian Experience. 26.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Hlavsa, T., 2010. Selected approaches of variables weighting in frame of composite
indicator analysis. I I (4), 59–64.
Horacek, T.M., White, A.A., Greene, G.W., Reznar, M.M., Quick, V.M., Morrell, J.S.,
Agah Muhammad Mulyadi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Colby, S.M., Kattelmann, K.K., Herrick, M.S., Shelnutt, K.P., Mathews, A., Phillips, B.
Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, W., Byrd-Bredbenner, C., 2012. Sneakers and spokes: an assessment of the
Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Atmy Verani walkability and bikeability of U.S. postsecondary institutions. Journal of
Environmental Health 74(7), 8–15, quiz 42.
Rouly Sihombing: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – Huang, J., Ma, J., Chen, D., Zhao, Y., Gao, C., 2019. Evaluation of Lane Reduction “road
review & editing, Visualization, Funding acquisition. Hendra Hen­ Diet” Measures in China. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
drawan: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, 688 (4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/688/4/044024.
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. (2021, July 12). Jakarta Honored at
Funding acquisition. Anita Vitriana: Formal analysis, Writing – review Sustainable Transport Award Ceremony in Washinton, DC. https://www.itdp.org/
& editing, Funding acquisition. Anjang Nugroho: Investigation, 2020/01/15/pune-jakarta-honored-at-sustainable-transport-award-in-washington-
Writing – review & editing, Resources, Visualization. dc.
Ivanova, N., Gugleva, V., Dobreva, M., Pehlivanov, I., Stefanov, S., Andonova, V., 2016.
Understanding Urban Mobility and Pedestrian Movement. Smart Urban
Declaration of Competing Interest Development, Intechopen i(tourism), 13.
Jain, A., Gupta, A., Rastogi, R., 2014. Pedestrian Crossing Behaviour Analysis At
Intersections. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering 4 (1),
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 103–116. https://doi.org/10.7708/ijtte.2014.4(1).08.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Kim, E.J., Kim, J., Kim, H., 2020. Does environmental walkability matter? The role of
walkable environment in active commuting. International Journal of Environmental
the work reported in this paper.
Research and Public Health 17 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041261.
Knapskog, M., Hagen, O.H., Tennøy, A., Rynning, M.K., 2019. Exploring ways of
Data availability measuring walkability. Transportation Research Procedia 41 (2016), 264–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.09.047.
Krambeck, H., Shah, J., 2005. The global walkability index: talk the walk and walk the
No data was used for the research described in the article. talk. The World Bank February, 1–29. http://cleanairasia.org/portal/system/file
s/60499_paper.pdf.
Acknowledgements Kweon, B.S., Rosenblatt-Naderi, J., Ellis, C.D., Shin, W.H., Danies, B.H., 2021. The effects
of pedestrian environments on walking behaviors and perception of pedestrian
safety. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168728.
The authors would like to thank to team survey from Institute of Lachapelle, U., 2015. Walk, bicycle, and transit trips of transit-dependent and choice
Road Engineering, Ministry of Public Works and Housing for supporting riders in the 2009 United States National Household travel survey. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health 12 (8), 1139–1147. https://doi.org/10.1123/
this research and all respondents who answered the questioners. The jpah.2014-0052.
authors also express their gratitude to the editor and anonymous re­ Leather, J., Fabian, H., Gota, S., Mejia, A., 2011. Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in
viewers for their comments and suggestions. In addition, this research Asian Cities State and Issues. Asian Development Bank Sustainable Development
Working Paper Series 17, 69.
received no external funding. Lee, W. Do. (2013). Identifying the factors affecting pedestrian flow volume and
walkability using the “seoul pedestrian survey” data. Proceedings of CUPUM 2013:
References 13th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management –
Planning Support Systems for Sustainable Urban Development, 1–17.
Lefebvre-Ropars, G., Morency, C., Singleton, P.A., Clifton, K.J., 2017. Spatial
Allan, A., 2001. Walking as a Local Transport Modal Choice in Adelaide. World Transport
transferability assessment of a composite walkability index: The Pedestrian Index of
Policy & Practice 7 (2), 44–51. https://www.eco-logica.co.uk/WTPPdownloads.html
the Environment (PIE). Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
.
57 (October), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.08.018.
Arellana, J., Saltarín, M., Larrañaga, A.M., Alvarez, V., Henao, C.A., 2020. Urban
Lin, S.P., Chan, Y.H., Tsai, M.C., 2009. A transformation function corresponding to IPA
walkability considering pedestrians’ perceptions of the built environment: a 10-year
and gap analysis. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 20 (8),
review and a case study in a medium-sized city in Latin America. Transport Reviews
829–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360903128272.
40 (2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1703842.
Maghelal, P.K., Capp, C.J., 2011. Walkability: A Review of Existing Pedestrian Indices.
Becker, W., Saisana, M., Paruolo, P., Vandecasteele, I., 2017. Weights and importance in
Journal of the Urban & Regional Information Systems Association 23 (2), 5–19.
composite indicators: Closing the gap. Ecological Indicators 80 (February), 12–22.
Majumdar, B.B., Sahu, P.K., Patil, M., Vendotti, N., 2021. Pedestrian Satisfaction-Based
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.056.
Methodology for Prioritization of Critical Sidewalk and Crosswalk Attributes
Besser, L.M., Dannenberg, A.L., 2005. Walking to public transit: Steps to help meet
Influencing Walkability. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 147 (3).
physical activity recommendations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 29 (4),
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000718.
273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.06.010.
Marisamynathan, Perumal, V., 2014. Study on pedestrian crossing behavior at signalized
Black, K. (2013). Business Statistics for Contemporary Decision Making sixth edition.
intersections. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition) 1
Jw& S, 53(9), 906.
(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-7564(15)30094-5.
Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G., 2011. Statistics notes: Correlation in restricted ranges of data.
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1986). Importance-performance analysis.
BMJ (Online) 343 (7823), 577. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d556.
McCormack, G.R., Shiell, A., Giles-Corti, B., Begg, S., Veerman, J.L., Geelhoed, E.,
Bradshaw, C. (1993). Creating And Using A Rating System For Neighborhood Walkability
Amarasinghe, A., Emery, J.C.H., 2012. The association between sidewalk length and
Towards An Agenda For “Local Heroes.” 1–7.
walking for different purposes in established neighborhoods. International Journal
Dannenberg, A. L., Cramer, T. W., & Gibson, C. J. (2005). Assessing the walkability of the
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/
workplace: a new ... [Am J Health Promot. 2005 Sep-Oct] – PubMed result. American
1479-5868-9-92.
Journal of Health Promotion, 20(1), 39–45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.
Ministry of Public Works and Housing, 2018. Pedoman Bahan Konstruksi Bangunan dan
DKI Jakarta Goverment. (2020). Bureau Statistics of the Province of DKI Jakarta.
Rekayasa Sipil: Perencanaan Teknis Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki. SE Menteri PUPR 1–43.
DKI Jakarta Provincial Government. (2017). Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah
Moura, F., Cambra, P., Gonçalves, A.B., 2017. Measuring walkability for distinct
Daerah Provinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta 2017-2022.
pedestrian groups with a participatory assessment method: A case study in Lisbon.
DKI Jakarta Provincial Government. (2021). Rencana Kerja Pembangunan Daerah Tahun
Landscape and Urban Planning 157, 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2021.
landurbplan.2016.07.002.
Dovey, K., Pafka, E., 2020. What is walkability? The urban DMA. Urban Studies 57 (1),
O’Hanlon, J., Scott, M. S., & West, L. (2016). Healthy and Complete Communities in
93–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018819727.
Delaware: The Walkability Assessment Tool. Healthy and Complete Communities in
Ferreira, H.P., Fernandes, P.O., 2015. Importance-performance Analysis Applied to a
Delaware: The Walkability Assessment Tool, 8–9.
Laboratory Supplies and Equipment Company. Procedia Computer Science 64,
Ormanovic, S., & Ciric, A. (2017). IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS :
824–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.634.
DIFFERENT APPROACHES. January 2018.
Frank, L.D., Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E., Leary, L., Cain, K.L., Conway, T.L., Hess, P.M.,
Patil, D., Khode, B., 2017. Effect of Pedestrian Movement on Traffic Los. International
2009. The development of a walkability index: application to the Neighborhood
Journal For Science Technology And. Engineering.
Quality of Life Study. British Journal of Sports Medicine 44, 924–933.
Ridhani, C., Christanto, J., 2015. Walkability Index of Sidewalk in Poros Medan
Gota, S., Fabian, H. G., Mejia, A. A., & Punte, S. S. (2008). Walkability surveys in Asian
Merdeka-Thamrin-Sudirman Jakarta. Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan
cities. Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI- Asia)., 20. http://www.ictct.org/
54 (3), 1184–1191.
migrated_2014/ictct_document_nr_663_102A Sophie Sabine Punte Walkability
Surveys in Asian Cities.pdf.

12
A. Muhammad Mulyadi et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 16 (2022) 100695

Rodríguez, D. A. (2006). An easy to compute index for identifying built environments that TomTom International BV. (2022). Jakarta in Traffic Index in 2021. https://www.
support walking An easy to compute index for identifying built environments that support tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/jakarta-traffic/.
walking. January 2006. U.S DOT. (2003). Walkability Checklist.
Rogers, S. H., Halstead, J. M., Gardner, K. H., & Carlson, C. H. (2011). Erratum to: Vale, D.S., Saraiva, M., Pereira, M., 2016. Active accessibility: A review of operational
Examining Walkability and Social Capital as Indicators of Quality of Life at the measures of walking and cycling accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use 9
Municipal and Neighborhood Scales (Applied Research in Quality of Life, 10.1007/ (1), 209–235. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.593.
s11482-011-9144-8). Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6(2), 215–216. https://doi. Walk San Diego. (2011). Walkability Guide. Do you Enjoy Walking in Your Community?
org/10.1007/s11482-011-9144-8. Circulate San Diego. (pp. 2–6).
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). “Research Methods for Business Wang, Y., Chau, C.K., Ng, W.Y., Leung, T.M., 2016. A review on the effects of physical
Students” Chapter 4: Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory built environment attributes on enhancing walking and cycling activity levels within
development. In Researchgate.Net (Issue January). www.pearson.com/uk. residential neighborhoods. Cities 50, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Shaaban, K., 2019. Assessing sidewalk and corridorwalkability in developing countries. cities.2015.08.004.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 11 (14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143865. Wang, J.J., Jing, Y.Y., Zhang, C.F., Zhao, J.H., 2009. Review on multi-criteria decision
Singh, R. (2016). Factors Affecting Walkability of Neighborhoods. Procedia – Social and analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable
Behavioral Sciences, 216(October 2015), 643–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Energy Reviews 13 (9), 2263–2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021.
sbspro.2015.12.048. Wicramasinghe, V., Dissanayake, S., 2017. Evaluation of pedestrians’ sidewalk behavior
Sisiopiku, V.P., Akin, D., 2003. Pedestrian behaviors at and perceptions towards various in developing countries. Transportation Research Procedia 25, 4068–4078. https://
pedestrian facilities: An examination based on observation and survey data. doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.327.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 6 (4), 249–274. Zacharias, J., 2001. Pedestrian behavior and perception in urban walking environments.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2003.06.001. Journal of Planning Literature 16 (1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Early, A.R., Garcia, C., Balcazar, D., Arias, D.L., Morales, M., 2020. 08854120122093249.
Walkability Safety and Walkability Participation: A Health Concern. Health Zheng, Y., Elefteriadou, L., Chase, T., Schroeder, B., Sisiopiku, V., 2016. Pedestrian
Education and Behavior 47 (3), 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Traffic Operations in Urban Networks. Transportation Research Procedia 15,
1090198120903256. 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.06.012.

13