Jurnal Kejuruteraan 32(2) 2020: 409-414

https://doi.org/10.17576/jkukm-2020-32(2)-05

User-friendly Streets for a Walkable, Liveable and Sustainable Environment:

A Review
Omar Abdulwahhab Khalaf a, b,*, Nor Haslina Ja`afara, c
a
Centre for Innovative Architecture & Built Environment (SErAMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
b
Department of Interior Design, Cihan University-Erbil, KRG, Iraq
c
Secretariat of National Identity Architecture, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

*Corresponding author: p93092@siswa.ukm.edu.my

Received 28 May 2019, Received in revised form 11 December 2019

Accepted 17 February 2020, Available online 30 August 2020

ABSTRACT

Streets are an important element of freely accessible public space and constitute the most significant manifestation of the
public domain. They exist to cater for the social and leisure requirements of the public and have a positive association
with economic development, public physical well-being and help establish an environment of communal bonding. It is
therefore crucial that streets are friendly to all users, a public space which provides a liveable environment for
pedestrians with a walkable environment that is inviting, safe, aesthetically pleasing, and equipped with sufficient
pedestrian amenities. Thus, this paper aims to examine the physical design features and characteristics of user-friendly
streets that contribute to a evilable environment. This review of the literature on liveability and user-friendly streets
indicates that many factors influence the degree of liveliness and form and finds that the physical design and
characteristics like Proportion and dimension, Sense of enclosure, Scale of street, Transparency, Unity and Quality of
View. Also finds the qualities of a user-friendly street such as, Comfort and convenient, Safety and security, and
Accessibility and linkages. All factors based on the purpose of physical forms and appearances, socio-economic and
characteristics of both users and the residents. As such, a well-designed street environment is essential with the streets
as ‘public space’ which can enhance their liveable environments in advance.

Keywords: Liveable; walkable; friendly street; quality of life

INTRODUCTION variety of elevations and not contained by buildings (Oktay

1990; Krier 1979; Sulaiman 2000).
DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS OF A STREET IN URBAN DESIGN This paper explains the motion of a “user-friendly street”
in enhancing the liveable environment. The primary ‎concern
Firstly, there is a primary difference between a ‘road’ is to study the physical design features and characteristics
and a ‘street.’ A road is defined as “an ordinary route of of a street that contribute to friendly ‎streets and liveability
communication between different places for travellers in urban areas. Tibbalds (1992:14) states that “we have
using vehicles” whereas a street is defined as “an enclosed actually got to address ‎the restructuring of our urban areas,
space between two lines of adjacent buildings” (Moughtin over possibly quite long time scales, to reflect a new set of
1992). Carmona et al. (2003), refer to streets as linear priorities in ‎which the needs of people - pedestrians, cyclists,
spaces bounded on opposite sides by buildings that may the young, the old and the infirm, as well as the able-bodied
or may not have roads. In this sense, streets are people- take precedence over the various demands of traffic and
oriented, catering to functional, social, and leisure developers‎” (Rahman & Shamsuddin 2010).
requirements of people. It is important that streets are
friendly to all users to provide a liveable environment for PROBLEMS
pedestrians.
Streets are considered among the most important Streets are a significant part of the urban form and the most
components of an urban form that facilitate public and accessible of the urban spaces in a ‎city. Globally, street
private activities of the city residents. Streets, much like issues have become an important topic as ‎streets. Thus
parks are the most publicly accessible of all city spaces for are ‎integral parts of the urban environment ‎with human
all users. Thus, the characteristics of a street and its qualities concentration. In contrast, the ‎urbanisation process has led
must meet the needs of all users. In this paper, ‘the street’, to an ‎increase ‎in the urban population. ‎ The rapid growth of
is defined as “One of the essential elements in designing un the urban population ‎and the construction have had a very
urban space.” Urban space is the space between buildings, considerable impact on how the city dwellers and ‎the social
space that is characterised by buildings, bounded by a spaces are related.
410

Over the past century, the quality of the urban needs” (Shuhana 2000). It is “something to do with usability,
environment has steadily declined in many cities and accessibility and safety” (Yaakub et al. 2009); it is “User-
become “inhuman” (Forsyth et al. 2008). The majority of friendly, facilitates a functional balance between human
urban areas globally have been overwhelmed and dominated needs, environmental factors and financial constraints”
by private vehicles, with drivers frequently ignoring the (Shuhana et al. 2007). Allan Jacobs (1996) noted that the
safety of ‎pedestrians and particularly vulnerable users essential quality in urban public spaces is that they meet
(children, people with a baby carriage, the elderly and the needs of the users. The distinct qualities that the public
handicapped) by ‎ostensibly and selfishly claiming exclusive space should have are safety (Whyte 1980; Jacobs 1961;
use of the street networks. This contributes to an unfriendly and Carmona et al. 2003); comfort and convenience (Jacobs
street environment for street users (Rahman & Shamsuddin 1996 and Lynch 1981); and accessibility (Whyte 1980;
2010). ‎ Carrs et al. 1992 and Jacobs, 1996).
Furthermore, a failure to understand the importance
Shimitz and Scully (2006) were in agreement on the
of proper urban design which takes into consideration the
need for a pedestrian-friendly street design, which could
implications of providing adequate public spaces within
help biological health and lifestyle changes and also
the urban environment led to a significant reduction of
improve their quality of life. This suggests that to design a
such public spaces in many urban developments, thus
depriving street users opportunities to enjoy safe and user- walkable environment, it is essential to take in consideration
friendly, liveable and walkable environments (Rahman & better and well-managed streetscapes furniture with a
Shamsuddin, 2010). Gehl (2007) highlighted the fact that strong character so that pedestrians will be able to enjoy
in many cities globally, street quality has been significantly walking comfortably in any part of the city. As such, from
eroded by sidewalk ‎interruptions, kerbs, dangerous street this perspective, planners or architects are required to
crossings, obstacles and other obstructions littering narrow innovatively create a space that is convenient to facilitate
sidewalks, thus inconveniencing with an unpleasant and citizens to enjoy walking within an acceptable distance to
unfriendly environment. make the city more liveable. Although the definition of a
Tsourlakis (2005) reported ‎that people are willing to user-friendly street for this paper has been stated earlier, it
walk more than they do today if public spaces could be is of importance to incorporate the notion of a user-friendly
improved. It is therefore crucial that the growing number of street in relation to a liveable environment (Figure 1).
urban centres with rapidly increasing populations should be According to the literature review, a user-friendly street
properly designed to ensure quality of urban life. Also taking is associated with walkability and walkable, which are often
into account the need to provide adequate public spaces explained together. The term ‘ability’ is ‎defined as “the
that are safe, healthy and which will contribute to greater fact that somebody or something is able to do something”
social integration and revitalize urban living (Rahman & (Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary 2010). Walkability
Shamsuddin 2010). The major issue that needs to be studied and walkable are also represented as a scale that something is
and addressed is the relationship between the quality of life “Walking Friendly”. Llewelyn-Davies stated that walkability
and the quality of the built environment (physical quality is defined by “the level of pedestrians’ comfort and safety,
and social quality), which is ‎one of the vital aspects that such as the existence of casual surveillance, spaces between
contribute to a people-friendly built environment. pedestrians and vehicles as well as high quality ‎connected
The explanation above shows that it is ‎important to pedestrian pathways” (2000 in Shamsuddin et al. 2004).
create a street that is friendly to the ‎pedestrian as it ‎will create The ongoing trend for cities is to modify the urban form to
a safe and convenient environment ‎for people to walk and promote walkability in two ways, which are: form building
establish social interaction. ‎Therefore, this study will ‎review by defining streets and the existence of squares adjacent to
‎the physical design ‎features and characteristics of user- building pavilions (1996; 1998 in Carmona et al. 2003).
friendly ‎streets that contribute to ‎a liveable ‎environment. Therefore, a city should also make available connecting
This paper is organized in sections. The first ‎section will street networks and upgrade pedestrian-friendly street
explain how the user-friendly street is ‎associated with a designs (Stephen 2004).
walkable, liveable and ‎sustainable environment. The second Besides the walkability, a user-friendly street is also
section will ‎explain the ‎aim of this paper, the factors that associated with the concept of a liveable environment.
‎contribute to the achievement of a user-friendly street Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (2010) defines
‎environment. liveable as “fit to live in.” EIU (2011) definition of
liveability describes it as “one of the aspects ‎that could
contribute to a high quality of living.” Liveability and
USER-FRIENDLY STREET ASSOCIATED WITH A WALKABLE, vibrancy of the built environment are being more frequently
LIVEABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT and universally discussed. For example, The Singapore
Centre for Liveable Cities (2011) defines liveability as a
Definitions of a friendly street revolve around a few studies “city through good planning, provides a vibrant, attractive
in the literature, and include: “a street that ‎is easy to use” and secure environment for people to live, work and play
(usability) (Oxford 2010); (an environment that “fulfills the and encompasses good governance, a competitive economy,
needs of all users” (Tibbalds 1992); and “environmental high quality of living and environmental sustainability.”
 411

FIGURE 1. Sustainability, Liveability and Wakability connection; Source: University of Winconsin ‎Transportation Analysis Team
(2011) “edited by the author”

According to Jacobs (1996), liveability is “the physical (1985) argued that the built environment must provide its
quality that is required to make a great street.” ‎Liveability users a basically democratic setting, which enriches their
is part of the sustainability concept which comprises six opportunities by optimising various available choices for
different objectives and components. One ‎of the aims is to them. A ‘responsive’ street is a street that has permeability,
attain the transportation sector’s goals like the promotion variety, legibility, visual appropriateness, personalisation
of walkability, providing greater ‎accessibility and more and richness (Bentley et al. 1985). Liveability is another
transportation choices (VTPI 2010). Therefore, this suggests theory associated with a user-friendly street. According to
that walkability is an aspect of the ‎liveability component in Jacobs (1996), liveability is the availability of the physical
improving the sustainability of the environment and in the quality that is essential for making a great street.
creation of a liveable place. Liveability is a ‎theory that This review found that two main factors contribute
relates to the user-friendly street. It is natural that every towards a user-friendly street environment. Consequently,
public street will expansion at those crucial ‎nodes where ‎are (i) the physical design ‎and characteristics, ‎and (ii) the
‎there is the most activity (Alexander 1977). qualities (as ‎shown in Figure 2). ‎
In conclusion, a user-friendly street is a street that A study of physical design and characteristic of a
fulfils the needs of its users through the quality of the user-friendly street can be divided into three parts, namely,
built environment in terms of physical, functional, social ‎proportion and dimension, sense of enclosure, scale;
quality and meaning. This discussion explains the concepts transparency; and unity; quality of view‎.
of user-friendly and related theories, as well as the current
body of knowledge ‎concerning the main attributes and PROPORTION AND DIMENSION, SENSE OF ENCLOSURE, SCALE
characteristics that determine a user-friendly street. The
conclusion will summarise ‎the key attributes as identified A friendly street must have proportion and dimension. In
in the literature. creating street proportion and ‎dimension of the width and
height in the street, there must be ease of movement, safety,
sun, wind flow ‎and military access which contribute to a
FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO A user-friendly street (Jacobs 1996). However, the context of
USER FRIENDLY STREET proportion ‎and dimensions comprises the factors that need
to be determined whether or not they are relevant and vital
Studies have found that a user-friendly street relates to concerning the use of the street.
three main theories (inclusive environments, responsive Sense of enclosure is another physical quality that
environments, and liveability). The Theory of Inclusive a street should have in order to be a user-friendly street
Environments of a street implies ease of access; safety and (Oktay ‎1990). Cullen (1961) defined enclosure as a space
usability are the essential elements that frame the inclusive that provides a completely private sphere, which is inward
design (Yaakub et al. 2009). Burton et al. (2006) stated that ‎looking, static and self-sufficient. The height and width ratio
inclusive design means the design of products, services and contribute to the level of enclosure for streets and ‎a street
locations that would be beneficial to the maximum number in its physical sense of enclosure is defined by the series
of people. For a street, inclusiveness means a street that of buildings on both sides, where the ratio of the ‎width of
is useable by all groups of people, no matter of what age the street to the height of the enclosing buildings is vital
and ability. Users of the street environment are all those for good street design (Moughtin 1992; ‎Abdallah 2009).
interested in their local environment and streets (Burton This indicates that the height of buildings, the width of the
et al. 2006). For responsive environments, Bentley et al. street and the continuity of the ‎buildings along the street are
412

FIGURE 2. A diagramme shows two significant factors that contribute towards a user-friendly street environment

the main aspects that provide a sense of enclosure. This is strengthen the unity and the quality ‎of ‎view in many street
considered ‎significant in a user-friendly street. scenes.
Scale is related to sense of enclosure and sense of place.
Scale is dependent on the comparison of a set of ‎dimensions
QUALITIES OF A USER FRIENDLY STREET
with another set; the relation of constructing an urban space
to the size of human beings is ‎vital to achieve a ‘sense of
place’. Spatial quality also depends on the scale of the unit, The qualities of the streets are crucial so as to draw people
‎understood as ‘human scale’ and is related to the ratio of to them. Jacobs (1996) noted that a ‎basic quality of urban
height to width measured along a section line (Oktay, 1990). public space is its ability to meet user needs. The qualities
of the street and other public ‎places that encourage people
TRANSPARENCY to use the spaces according to previous studies are used as
qualities of the street associated ‎with a user-friendly urban-
The great streets have about them a valuable characteristic commercial street. ‎ In this paper, the qualities discussed
of transparency at their edges and the public field of the are those most frequently quoted by various scholars. The
street (Jacobs 1996). Transparency is essential to give a summary of the ‎qualities, as determined by different scholars,
sense of comfort and safety to the ‎users on the street. Lynch established that the most commonly cited qualities linked to
(1981) argued that transparency is the quality of the street a user-friendly street are: comfort and convenience; safety
that people can directly ‎observe the execution of different and security; accessibility and ‎linkages. This is supported by
technical functions, activities, social and natural processes the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) (2005), which identified
that take place in ‎streets that convey a sense of life.‎ the qualities that make ‎a great place by four key attributes:
Shamsuddin (2011) added that most of the modern buildings uses and activities; comfort and image; access and linkages;
nowadays withdraw from the street, thereby ‎shutting the and sociability.
activities within that allows the street to cease to function
effectively and causes the townscape to ‎become alienated COMFORT AND CONVENIENT
(Shamsuddin 2011). Therefore, transparency is important to
ensure that the activities that ‎happen indoors are visible to In order for a street to be used and be the best place to walk,
outdoors and vice versa. the street must offer a ‘sense of comfort’ and ‎be pleasing
(Jacobs 1996). However, for urban streets, comfort implies
UNITY AND QUALITY OF ‎V IEW ‎ the extent to which streets ‎allow people to go where they
wish without subjecting them to physical and mental
Unity is also an important physical character of streets. discomfort. Comfortable streets offer a sense of ‎calm,
Allan Jacobs (1996) suggested that the buildings in the are hospitable and pedestrian-friendly with the required
‎street are compatible with each other even though they are amenities and services (Burton 2006). Comfort is a ‎quality
different but express respect for each other in height and in of a prosperous street and a measure of a good street (Carr
appearance. Gibberd (Moughtin 1992) argued that the street et al. 1992; Jacobs 1996: PPS 2005; ‎Carmona et al. 2003).
is a space in which the users are assorted to form a ‎series of Carmona et al. (2003) argued that the quality of comfort is
street images that may be extended into vaster spaces like associated with environmental aspects, physical, social and
squares. psychological comfort as shown below in Table 1.
A friendly street must have a quality of ‎view. Rapopor
(1976) suggested that physical differences, such as ‎shape SAFETY AND SECURITY
size, height, colour, materials, texture, details, location and
movement, must be noticed by the perceiver. ‎Therefore, the Perception of safety is a frequent and typical concern and
use of common materials, details and architectural elements a reality in all urban spaces that cannot be denied as one
 413

TABLE 1. Comfort and convenient

Attributes Key Factors

Comfort and convenient Safe, clean, ‘green’,
walkable, sittable,
charming, attractive and
historic

TABLE 2. Safety and security

Attributes Key Factors

Comfort and convenient Safe, clean, ‘green’,
walkable, sittable,
charming, attractive and
historic

TABLE 3. Accessibility and linkages

Attributes Key Factors

Safety and security Fear of traffic/accidents, ‎Fear of
crime, Fear of dark

of the factors in comfort. According to Burton, (2006), CONCLUSION

safety is a fundamental feature of streets for life. Safety
‎implies people being able to walk, work and live without In summary, to create a street that is a prosperous urban
fear, day and night; without fear of meeting strangers on public area to enhance the liveable ‎environment from the
the street; walking alone and with ease of mind; no fear perspective of sustainability; need to good understanding of
of crime; a feeling of security; and individuals feel at ease the physical design ‎characteristics and qualities of the user-
within a diverse mix of varying physical motifs and social friendly street is the most important. Several ways exist in
exchanges (Talha, 2008). However, Safety implies streets which urban designers, planners and policymakers can act to
that encourage people to use, enjoy and move all over the support the quality of the street and create a friendly street.
external space and bot having to worry about tripping or The designers must understand the current need of users
falling, being knocked down or being mugged as shown and create places that have qualities and characteristics
below in Table 2. that can meet the needs of all users. This paper shows that
a walkable environment results in a liveable environment
ACCESSIBILITY AND LINKAGES of a city by encouraging the design of user-friendly streets.
Finally, it is suggested that in the creation of a liveable
Accessibility is also a fundamental aspect of the street
street environment, care should be taken to make sure that
and an essential performance element of urban space and
the streets are clean, safe and inspiring; all the qualities
the people that use it (Lynch 1981; Jacobs 1996; Carr et
mentioned previously should be presented.
al. 1992; Making Places Newsletter 2005). Accessibility
refers to streets that allow the users to access, enter, use and
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
walk to wherever they wish to go; streets that can be easily
accessed offer local services and amenities, are conveniently The authors would like to acknowledge Ministry of Higher
interconnected to each other (persons, services, resources, Education (MOHE) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
‎activities, location indicators and directories), have broad, FRGS/1/2015/SSI11/UKM/02/2 for facilitating the research.
flat pathways and safe ground level pedestrian ‎crossings
with adequate signal controls (Lynch 1981; Burton 2006) as DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTEREST
it shown below in Table 3.
Based on the literature, the factors and attributes of the None.
physical, functional and social dimensions ‎are significant
to create a user-friendly street in an urban area. The results REFERENCES
of the friendly street can be known through the way the
physical and functional elements are related on the street and Abdullah, G. B. 2009. Practices: Implementation and enforcement
also through the human ‎response. Thus, the interrelations of universal design by the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (KLCH).
between all these aspects are crucial for a user-friendly Paper Presented in International Conference on Universal
street. Design in the Built Environment (ICUDBE) 2-3 December 2009.
414

Ahmad Bashri, S., Shuhana, S. 2007. Conceptual New Model of Rapoport, A. 1976. The Mutual Interaction of People and Their
City/Town Based on the Traditional Urban Form. UTM. Built Environment: Across Cultural Perspectives. Hague:
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. 1977. A Pattern Mouton Publishers.
Language. New York: Oxford University Press. New York. Schmitz, A., & Scull Y. J. 2006. Creating Walkable Places:
Bentley, M., Murrain, P., Mcglynn, S. & Smith, G. 1985. Compact Mixed Use Solutions. Urban Land Institute.
Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. London: Shamsuddin, S. 2004. Criteria of Successful Traditional Shopping
Architectural Press. London. Street in Malaysia: A Case Study of Kuala Lumpur. Johor:
Burton, E. & Mitchell, l. 2006. Inclusive Urban Design: Streets for Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Life. Architectural Press. UK. Shamsuddin, S. 1997. Identity of place: A case study of Kuantan
Carmona, M., Heath, M. T., OC, T. & Tiesdell, S. 2003. Public town centre, Malaysia. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis University
Spaces Urban Spaces. New York: The Architectural Press. Of Nottingham.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, G. L. & Stone, A. M. 1992. Public Shamsuddin, S. 2011. Townscape Revisited: Unravelling the
Space. Cambridge University Press. USA. Character of the Historic Townscape in Malaysia. Johor: UTM
Cullen, G. 1961. The Concise Townscape. London: The Press. Malaysia.
Architectural Press. Stephen, M. 2004. A Better Urban Design of Cities is Closely to
Economic Intelligence Unit. 2011. A summary of the liveability Sustainable Planning. Routledge Urban Reder series. United
ranking and overview. Retrieved September 13, 2011. States.
Forsyth, A. & Southworth, M. 2008. Guest editorial: Cities a foot Sulaiman, A. B. 2000. Urban design method-Theory and practice: A
- Pedestrians, walkability and urban design. Journal of Urban case study in Malaysia, Unpublished. Ph.D. Thesis University
Design 13(1): 1- 3. Of Nottingham.
Gehl, J. 2007. Public space for changing public life. In Open Talha, K. 2008. Urban crime and safe neighbourhoods: Community
Space: People Space, edited by Ward Thopmson and Trovlou. perspectives. Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners 6:
P, 3-9. London: Taylor and Francis Group. 39-55.
Jacobs, A. B. 1996. Great Streets. Cambridge: MIT Press. Tibbalds, F. 1992. Making People-Friendly Towns: Improving
Cambridge. the Public Environment in Towns and Cities. Harlow:
Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New Longman.
York: Vintage Books. Tsourlakis, K. 2005. Pedestrians and road safety in Greece.
Krier, R. 1979. Urban Space. New York: Rizzoli International Proceeding of the 3rd Conference on Road Safety, Patras,
Publication Inc. Greece.
Lynch, K. 1981. A Theory of Good City Form. Cambridge: MIT University of Winconsin Transportation Analysis Team. 2011.
Press. Sustainability, liveability and wakability connection.
Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press. Transportation And Urban System Analysis Laboratory.
Moughtin, C. 1992. Urban Design: Street and Square. Oxford: Retrived from http://tusal.cee.wisc.edu/index.html
Butterworth Heinemann Ltd. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI). 2010. Transport
Oktay, D. 1990. Space: The medium of urbanism. Pamir, H., strategies and plan. Retrieved from Department of Transport,
Imamoglu, V., Teymur, N.(eds.). Culture-space -History State Government of Victoria, Australia official.
Proceedings 11th International Conference of the lAPS, Whyte, W. H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.
Ankara, Turkey. Washington D. C.: The Conservation Foundation.
Oxford Advance Learner Dictionary. 2010. 10th edition. Oxford Yaakub, N .M., & Hashim, N. R. 2009. Accessibility for disabled
University Press. UK. and elderly people in Malaysia: Problems and solutions. The
PPS. 2005. Projects for public spaces. http:www.pps.org/ Malaysian Surveyor 44(2): 30-34.
newsletter/December 2005/squares-principles.
Rahman, N. A., & Shamsuddin, S. 2010. User perceptions towards
street ‎characteristics and qualities that contribute to user
friendly street: An examination based on survey ‎data. Arte-
Polis 3 International Conference on Creative Collaboration
and the Making of Place, Bandung.