Scholarly article on topic 'Comparative Study of Neighbourhood Walkability to Community Facilities between Two Precincts in Putrajaya'

Comparative Study of Neighbourhood Walkability to Community Facilities between Two Precincts in Putrajaya Academic research paper on "Social and economic geography"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{Accessibility / "community facilities planning" / walkability / "urban nieghbourhood area"}

Abstract of research paper on Social and economic geography, author of scientific article — Diyanah Inani Azmi, Hafazah Abdul Karim, Puziah Ahmad

Abstract Provision of community facilities may influence the walkability level of residents in urban neighbourhood area. Walkability can be measured through accessibility of urban residents to retail and community facilities provided. The objective of this paper is to understand the perceptions of residents accessibility to community facilities provided. The data was gathered by using the questionnaire survey and analyses using T-test analysis and Kruskal Wallis test. The total number of 381 respondents who live in Precinct 8 and Precinct 9 in Putrajaya were selected to answer the questionnaire survey. The findings of this study will show the qualities of resident's perception on accessibility affect the level of walkability in neighbourhood area.

Academic research paper on topic "Comparative Study of Neighbourhood Walkability to Community Facilities between Two Precincts in Putrajaya"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105 (2013) 513 - 524

AicE-Bs2013London Asia Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies University of Westminster, London, UK, 6-8 September 2013 "From Research to Practice"

Comparative Study of Neighbourhood Walkability to Community Facilities between Two Precincts in Putrajaya

Diyanah Inani Azmia*, Hafazah Abdul Karima,b, Puziah Ahmadb

aCentre for Environment-Behaviour Studies bCentre for Town and Regional Planning Studies _Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying. UiTMShah Alam, Malaysia_

Abstract

Provision of community facilities may influence the walkability level of residents in urban neighbourhood area. Walkability can be measured through accessibility of urban residents to retail and community facilities provided. The objective of this paper is to understand the perceptions of residents accessibility to community facilities provided. The data was gathered by using the questionnaire survey and analyses using T-test analysis and Kruskal Wallis test. The total number of 381 respondents who live in Precinct 8 and Precinct 9 in Putrajaya were selected to answer the questionnaire survey. The findings of this study will show the qualities of resident's perception on accessibility affect the level of walkability in neighbourhood area.

© 2013TheAuthors. Publishedby ElsevierLtd.

Selectionand peer-reviewunderresponsibilityofCentrefor Environment-Behaviour Studies(cE-Bs),FacultyofArchitecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.

Ketwords: Accessibility; community facilities planning; walkability; urban nieghbourhood area

1. Introduction

Walkability is becoming a buzzword in planning today as new urbanism ideas are spreading throughout the profession. According to Abley (2005), walkability can be defined as "the extent to which the built environment is friendly to the presence of people living, shopping, visiting, enjoying or spending time in an area". According to Franks (2006), walkability is also dependent on human behaviour of the residents in the neighbourhood area. Communities nationwide today are suffering from growing traffic

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +060126670274; fax: +0-000-000-0000 . E-mail address: diyanah_inani@yahoo.com.

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.055

congestion resulting in low-density development and sprawling development patterns. There are increasing attentions in the interaction between land use planning and travel behaviour especially the role of heightened accessibility. Krizek et al. (2012) outlines that accessibility can be increased by bringing the trip origin close together to destination. This step can help spur walking and reduce overall travel distances. It is suggested that to understand the effectiveness of this approach, it lies in residents' knowledge on how close the destination need to be for them to notice the existing subsequently by walk. The understanding of residents perception of walking distance to destination vary by type of community facilities provided (e.g: grocery stores, bank, parks) or socio-demographic group.

Individual tends to participate in an activity at a separate location when they travel. They choose a quick, comfortable and convenient ways to get to that destination which resulting in driving. To reduce the need to travel, urban planner and related professional suggested that land use planning can bring origin and destination closer together (Mumford, 1956). Moreover, increase neighbourhood density also is the conventional theory that supports the decrease of trip distance, the increase in walking activities and the decline of overall auto use may decline. Studies by Robinson (1976) & Katz (1993) stated that several researchers have proposed creating local shopping opportunities closer to the consumer and residential areas to increase the accessibility of the stores.

The assumption within all of these design philosophies is that residents will take advantage of retail and other community facilities provided if the location is close to their home. The efficiency of this approach, however, drawn back to the question of the degree of knowledge that the residents have about their nearby destination. Errant knowledge comes in the form of not knowing a potential destination exists or miscalculating the distance to the destination. Both cases can potentially jeopardize the degree to which residents frequent such establishment. Therefore, it is important to understand how resident's perception of walking distance to destination and how these perceptions vary by type of community facilities provided.

2. Community facilities in neighbourhood

Community facilities are the local services in neighbourhood area. Localised provision of community facilities to permit access by walking should be encouraged in every neighbourhood. According to Barton, Grant & Guise (2003), community facilities should be clustered together at location well served by bus or pedestrian routes preferably parallel to the main street which can offer variable catchments that can adapt to market condition. Cluster of community facilities provides an opportunity for multi-purpose trips that can save people's time and money. Clustering can also increase the proportion of people using public transportation rather than the private cars (Cervero,1990). Within the group, the various facilities should be physically separated for each other to prevent conflict of circulation (De Chiara &Koppleman, 1925). , The physical centred of the neighbourhood can stimulate the growth of community relationship. According to Azmi & Karim (2011), the strategic location of community facilities is different depending on the type of community facilities provided. Previous research also suggested that perception may vary based on the type of destination being judged (Lee, 1970). The type of common community facilities that should be located within walking distance in the neighbourhood area are listed as below (Table 1.):

Table 1. Type of common community facilities/services within walking distance

Authors

Barton, Grant & Guise (2003)

Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scales (NEWS) by Saelens et al (2003)

Krisek, Homing & El-Geneidy (2012)

De Chiara & Kopplenian, (1925)

Community Facilities/Services

There are 12 types of services :

• Local shop

• Nursery/jumor school

• Primary school

• Secondary school

• Health centre

• Food shop (pub)

• Post office

• Local centre

• Community centre

• Bus stop

• Open space

• Leisure facility

There are 23 types of services:

• Convenience/small grocery store

Supermarket Hardware store Fruit/vegetable market Laundry/dry cleaners Clothing store Post office Library

Elementary School Other school Book store Fast food restaurant Coffee place Bank

Non-fast food restaurant Video store Pharmacy Salon

Your job/school Bus stop Park

Recreation centre Fitness facilities'gym_

Divided the services

into 3 main group:

• Retail businesses (convenience store, grocery store, hardware store. Laundromat. bookstore,coffee shop, bank, pharmacybarber)

• Public services (Post office, library, school)

• Amenities (Transit stop, off-street trail,park)

Did not explam m detail about services that should be provided only outlines type of mam community facilities should be provided such as:

• Local shop

• Elementary school

• Junior school

• High school

• Playground

• Churches

In this research, the type of community facilities or services selected was based on the availability of the services provided within a radius of 400 meter (approximately 5 minute of walking) in the neighbourhood area. There are a total of 13 community facilities and services used to testify perception of residents walking time in both neighbourhood area such as grocery store/supermarket, park or recreational facility (indoor or outdoor), elementary school, other school, community centre, restaurant or other places, bank, medical clinic/pharmacy, personal shop (laundry, salon), workplace, bus stop, post office and place of worship. In Malaysia, the place of worship in neighbourhood area is usually known as 'surau' as the main religion in Malaysia is Islam.

3. Measuring walkability through accessibility

Accessibility is one of the factors that need to consider in measuring walkability. According to Gebel et al. (2009), walkability refer to how 'friendly' an area is for pedestrians. Compact, connected urban environment with a mixture of densities and land uses create shorter distance between desired destinations, thus encourage people to walk for transportation. Studies by Frank and Pivo (1994) have identified landuse mix (measuring through access to facilities and diversity of uses), resident density and street connectivity as the key aspects to creating walkability indices. Transportation researchers and planners have created walkability indices that take into account three factors:

• Mixed-use planning

The variety and proximity of destinations (how close destinations are to walk to); access to key destinations is a critical factor influencing the choice to walk for transport. (Transport Research Board, 2009)

• Density

Areas with higher residential densities are more likely to support the presence of shops and services; thus the density of an area is indirectly related to walking. (Transport Research Board, 2009)

• Street connectivity

The directness of travel routes between homes, shops, workplaces and other destinations. Neighbourhoods with grid pattern street networks typically have greater connectivity than those with curvilinear layouts. Walking for transport is encouraged when the street network is more connected, obstacles are kept to a minimum, and there is no requirement to cross major roads.(Saelens, Sallis & Frank, 2003); (Frank, Andresen & Schmid, 2004)

Based on Barton, Grant & Guise (2003), accessibility criteria should reflects the gross densities that are achievable, reflects the directness of pedestrian routes, the propensity of users to walk to specific facilities (walking time or distance) and the location requirements (some facilities require more land and therefore less locationally flexible). Barton, Grant & Guise (2003) also suggested the normal maximum of actual walking distance and time to access the community facilities/services provided in neighbourhood area as below:

Table 2. Maximum of actual walking distance and time

Community Facilities/Services Walking distance (meters) Walkmg tune (minutes)

Local shop,bus stop Within 400 meters Approximately 5 minutes

Nursery school, primary school, Within 600 meters Approximately 7 minutes

community facilties

Local centre, post office, restaurant Within 800 meters Approximately 10 minutes

Secondary School Within 1000 meter Approximately 12 minutes

District centre, superstore, leisure centre Within 2000 meter Approximately 25 minutes

Sources: Adapted from Barton, Grant & Guise (2003) 3.1. Residents' knowledge

In rural or urban setting, the individual cannot perceive the entire environment surrounding in one moment. In order for an individual to navigate with any environment they must integrate characteristics of their surrorndrng into a single "representation' that can minimize the gaps in their perception and allows them to make decision (Crompton, 2006). The objective of distance between two points has long been assumed to be the primary factor involved in representations of distance; the researcher has proposed that many other factors influence distance perception (Lee, 1970). Much research has stated that distance are perceived as longer when there is more information to remember about an environment such as intersection and barrier. According to theory, urban residents who live in higher density areas with more buildings and destination along most routes would consistently overestimate distance to destination. While, residents in low density with larger buildings, lots and more open space would tend to underestimate distances. Several studies have concluded that age and gender have differed impacts on distance perception (Lee, 1970; Nasar, 1985; Popp et al., 2004). Low income group have a tendency to

overestimate walking time rather than people with higher income perhaps as a result of less education or mobility (Burnett, 1978; Lowrey, 1973). Canter & Tagg (1975) found that residents used large landmarks as the reference point to perceived distance. Physical attributes of neighbourhood are important factors to be take into account when studying perceived walking distance and accessibility. However, an individual's judgment of the distance to destinations depends on knowledge of environment and trip characteristics. One study shows that customers' perception of travel time and distance to stores was more accurate if they were more familiar with the destination (Kang et al., 2003). Studies done by Krizek et al. (2012) found 13 variables used to measure residents' perceptions on accessibility in neighbourhood area such as distance to closest destination, opportunities, length of stay, gender, walker, cyclist, transit, household income, age, single family home, intersections, trails, parks. For this paper, only four variables will be used to analyse the residents' perception in both site areas. The chosen variables are listed as below:

Table 3. Variables used to measure residents' perceptions on accessibility

Variables

Explanation

Length of stay

Gender

Household income

Length of residence in an area influence perception of walkuig distance (Golledge et al., 1969)

The longer a person has live in an area, the more lively they are familial' with destination.

Multiple studies have found that familiarity with destination has vaiing impacts on perception.

Female perceive walkmg distance differently than males.

Popp et al. suggest that females had a higher variance m their distance estimations.

In several studies, age has been found to be significant factor influencing distance perception. (Lee, 1970); (Nasar et al., 1985)

Age also influence walkmg time and speed which will influence the measured accuracy of individual perception

Incomes have correlated with education, overall mobility and mode choice which may impact distance perception

Burmett & Bnggs (1975) found out that lowest income group overestimated driving travel tunes to destinations the most

Sources: Adapted from Krizek et al. (2012)

4. Methodology

The purpose of this paper is to understand the perceptions of residents accessibility to community facilities provided in two different urban neighbourhoods in Putrajaya. The study is conducted in an urban neighbourhood area at Precinct 8 and Precinct 9 in Putrajaya. Putrajaya is a planned city, located 25km south of Kuala Lumpur, which serves as the federal administrative centre of Malaysia. Majority of the neighbourhood area in Precinct 9 consists of flat and apartment which resulting in high population density. Precinct 8 consists of terrace and semi detached houses with cul-de sacs neighbourhood area which resulting in lower residential density. However, both Precincts have the same characteristic in the community facilities planning whereby it was located in the center and clustered together. The total populations for both Precincts are 37,515 residents; Precinct 8 with 6,979 residents and Precincts 9 with 30,537 residents. The total number of 379 respondents is needed for the total population between 30 000 to 40 000 people (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). To get the total sample for each of the site area, the total

sample was divided using proportionate sampling (stratified sampling) where 72 samples for Precinct 8 and 307 samples for Precinct 9.

Fig. 1. Study area location in Putrajaya; Precinct 8(blue circle) and Precinct 9 (red circle) 4.1. Research instrument

The survey conducted using a questionnaire asking the residents' perceptions on accessibility of residents walk from their home to community facilities or services provided within the walkable catchment identified. The main survey question used in this analysis seeking respondents to indicated the amount of time they thought it would take for them to walk from their home to the nearest of each of a list of common destination. The destination on the survey was stated in the previous literature review. For each of the destination, the respondent was asked to estimate how many minutes they take to walk from their home to the nearest community facilities or services provided. The scale starting from 5 as very short (1-5 minutes), 4 as short (6-10 minutes), 3 as moderate (11-20 minutes), 2 as long (20-30 minutes) and 1 as very long (30 minutes and above). According to Mac Eachren (1980), time cognition is more useful than distance in explaining spatial behavior and both measures appear to be influenced by many factors. Travel time is generally is more important than objective distance (Burnett, 1978; Mac Eachren, 1980). Then the responses will be tabulated and analyzed using chi-square test for independence analysis with the aid of Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

4.2. Data analysis

This paper is part of a master research consisting of four main domains which are 1) Social Demographic Characteristic^) Neighbourhood Characteristic, 3) Walkability Characteristic and 4) Community Facilities Planning. This paper focuses on community facilities planning domains. There are two main variables in walkability characteristic domains which are 1) strategic location and 2) easy of accessibility. This paper only covers one variable which is easy of access. The data were analyzed using the descriptive analysis, independent sample T-Test (gender) and Kruskal Wallis Test (for length of stay, age and household income). The Descriptive analysis technique is the analysis where the data were obtained using the percentage, frequency and mean of respondent against the question forwarded. This analysis is simple as the data is obtained from answers pick by the respondents. The T-Test analysis is the test that used to compare the mean for two different groups of people or conditions. Kruskal Wallis Test is the non-parametric test that used to compare the score on some continuous variable for three or more groups between dependent and independent variables (Pallant,2007).

5. Result and discussion

5.1. Descriptive analysis

The analyses are divided into three parts. The first part is a descriptive analysis on social demographic characteristics of both neighbourhood areas. The second part analysed the relationship of walking activity with perceptions of walking time to community facilities/services provided. The final part explains how perceptions on accessibility vary by different socio-demographic variable.

Respondents' were asked to provide information on their gender, age, household income, length of stay, ownership and household size. Based on neighbourhood density (refer Table 4), Precinct 8 is a low density neighbourhood area while Precinct 9 is a high density neighbourhood area with the difference of 66 population per acres and 10 population per acres. Based on gender characteristics, majority of respondents in Precinct 8 consists of female (63.9%). However, Precinct 9 shows different result where the majority of the respondents is male (51.6%). For age characteristic, both neighbourhood areas show the same result with the majority of the respondents within 23-35 years old. This can be summaries that respondents in both neighbourhood areas are from teenagers and adults group. Teenagers and adults walk an average walking speed of 1.4 meter per second. For household income characteristic, both neighbourhood areas have an average household income between RM2000-RM4000. Other characteristic that need to be consider to measure the perceptions' of accessibility in neighbourhood area is the length of stay. In this study, majority of the respondents' Precinct 8 live longer in their neighbourhood (more than 10 years) compared to Precinct 9 (4-6 years). This can be concluded that only results for gender and length of stay varied between these two neighbourhood areas.

Studies done by Krizek et al. (2012) shows that residents' who live in high density and more mixed use neighbourhood with a large number of nearby services may estimate the walking time to destination more accurately. However it is also possible residents have more difficulty to remember which store is closest to them resulting in less accuracy in their walking time estimations. Based on previous literature review, it was stated that gender and age are the significant factors that can influence the distance perceptions of residents' in a neighbourhood area. For household income, low income group tend to overestimate walking time more than people with higher income group of residents'. Moreover, the longer people live in the neighbourhood, the more accurate the perceptions' of walking time to the destination. This is because they are familiar with the destination to the services provided. These are the reason why only four of the social demographic characteristics were used in the analysis of this research.

Table 4. Descriptive characteristic of respondent in both neighbourhood

Characteristics Precinct 8 Precinct 9

Density (population per acres) 10 66

Mean of gender 1.64 1.48

Male 36.1% 51.6%

Female 63.9% 48.4%

Mean of age 3.79 3.51

(25-35 years old)

Mean of household income 2.71 2.22

Under RM2000 22.3% 24.5%

RM2000-RM4000 31.9% 52.3%

RM4001-RM6000 25.0% 12.7%

RM6001-RM8000 15.3% 3.3%

Above RM8001 5.6% 2.0%

Mean of length of stay 2.50 2.21

Less than 3 years 26.4% 17.6%

4-6 years 27.8% 52.0%

7-9 years 8.3% 21.9%

More than 10 years 37.5% 8.5%

5.2. Walking to community facilities in neighbourhood

This is the second part of the analysis. From observations, the community facilities that were listed in this analysis are located within walking distance of 400 meter (5 minute of walk) from respondents' houses. The walking activity scales are categories as (3) Yes, (2) No, (1) services/community facilities not provided. For walking time, the scales are categories as from 5 as very short (1-5 minutes), 4 as short (6-10 minutes), 3 as moderate (11-20 minutes), 2 as long (20-30 minutes) and 1 as very long (30 minutes and above). The result is explained using mean scores (refer Table 5). The analysis will show three outcomes; (1) Different frequencies of walking activities to the community facilities/services provided in the two neighbourhoods, (2) Differences of perceptions on walking times to community facilities provided, (3) The relationship between walking activities and perception on walking time.

As in Table 5, overall respondents walk only to a certain type of community facilities/services. Respondents in Precinct 8 choose to walk to three types of services such as park/recreation facilities, place of worship(surau) and bus stop with the score of x= 3.0. However, Precinct 9 show a different pattern, respondent choose to walk to four types of services such as grocery store/supermarket, park or recreation facility, place of worship (surau) and bus stop with a mean score of 3.0. These showed that residents' in Precinct 9 are more likely to walk to reach their community facilities rather than residents in

Precinct 8. Individual who walk in their neighbourhood is more likely to be familiar with the services available nearby, will have more accurate perception of the walking time to these services.

For perception on walking time, the accuracy of overall respondents' perception was consistently low for Precinct 8 rather than Precinct 9. Since all the community facilities is located within approximately 5 minute of walking time in both neighbourhoods, the accuracy of the time estimated will be dependent on the mean score. Community facilities with higher mean score have more accuracy on the perceptions of walking time. The acceptable mean score is ranging from 5.0 which indicated very close to 3.0 indicated moderate distance. Based on Table 5, respondents in Precinct 8 estimated that only three services are very close (1- 5 minute) for them to walk to the destination. The community facilities/ services are park or recreational facility, place of worship (surau) and bus stop. However, respondents in Precinct 9 estimated five services as very close (1-5 minute) that they can reach it by walking. The community facilities/services are grocery store/supermarket, park or recreational facility, place of worship (surau), restaurant or other places to eat and bus stop.

The relationship between walking activity and estimated of walking time are related as both neighbourhood shows that the services that residents' reach by walking have high accuracy on estimation of waking time except for a restaurant or other places to eat for Precinct 9. As a proxy for familiarity, these findings lend some support to Kang et al.(2003) assertion that familiarity with the route taken to reach the destination can increase the accuracy on estimated of walking time to the services compared to the services they did not reach by walking.

Table 5. Walking to community facilities or services provided

Community Facilities/Services Precinct 8 Precinct 9

(Destination) Walking Perceptions on Walking Perception on

( x ) Walking time ( x ) Walking time

( x ) ( x )

Grocery store/Supermarket 2.0 2.64 3.0 3.52

Park or recreational facility 3.0 3.92 3.0 3.90

(indoor or outdoor)

Elementary school 2.0 2.93 2.0 2.54

Other school 2.0 2.47 2.0 2.21

Community centre 2.0 2.68 2.0 2.83

Place of worship (Surau) 3.0 3.60 3.0 4.47

Restaurant or other places to eat 2.0 2.39 2.0 3.04

Bank 2.0 2.15 2.0 1.77

Medical clinic/pharmacy 2.0 2.14 2.0 2.64

Personal shop 2.0 1.93 2.0 2.34

Workplace 2.0 1.62 2.0 1.69

Bus stop 3.0 3.49 3.0 3.82

Post office 2.0 1.49 2.0 1.51

Note: Walking scales: (1) Services/Community facilties not provided, (2) No, (3) Yes

Walking time scales: (1) 30+ min - very far,(2) 20-30 min- far,(3) 11-20 min- moderate, (4) 6-10 min- close, (5) 1-5 min- very

6. Residents' perception of walking time and accessibility

This is the third part of the analysis. The result in this part will outline the statistically significant difference between perception on accessibility with socio-demographic variables in the site area using the T-test analysis and Kruskal-Wallis test. The independent variable used for both test is socio demographic variables. For dependent variable used is respondent estimation of walking time to the closest destination. The result is explained using p-value. According to Pallant (2007), to be significant the p-value need to be 0.05 or smaller for both test. Based on Table 8, both neighbourhoods indicated that there is no significant differences (p = >0.05) association between gender and accessibility to services provided in the neighbourhood area. In the previous literature review, there is study suggested that female perceive walking distance differently than males.

Result for length of stay shows a different pattern in Precinct 8 as there is no significant difference in level of accessibility for all of the community facilities/services provided. For Precinct 9, there are two community facilities/services that are significantly differences in level of accessibility which are a restaurant or other places to eat (p = 0.000) and bus stop 0.050). Respondents' expressed that it is easy to reach the bus stop by walking from home.

Result for age indicated that there is no significant differences association between age and perceptions of accessibility for Precinct 9. However, there are two services with significant differences which are the place of worship (surau) (p =0.000) and restaurant or other places to eat (p=0.017). Place of worship(surau) is located within reachable distance in the neighbourhood because the facility is easily accessed and only take 1-5 minutes of walking time based on residents perceptions'.

Finally, household income is highly associated variable between perceptions on accessibility. Precinct 8 shows that only park or recreational facility services (table 6) have no significant differences associated with walking time. Precinct 9 shows that all community facilities/services provided have significant differences associated with walking time as the score of p-value is less than 0.050.

This can be concluded that not all socio-demographic variables influence the perceptions' on accessibility as it depends also on the environment characteristic to measure the level of accessibility in a nieghbourhood area.

Table 6. T-test and Kruskal-Wallis test result

Variable

Grocery

store/Supermarket

Precinct 8 (p-value)

Precinct 9 (p-value)

*Gender Length of Age Household *Gender Length Age Household

stay income of stay income

0.372 0.594 0.830 0.066

Park or recreational facility

(indoor or outdoor)

Place of worship (Surau) 0.820 0.157

Restaurant or other places 0.529 0.429 to eat

0.147 0.032 0.102 0.636

0.476 0.023 0.101 0.054

0.124 0.153

0.523 0.695

0.098 0.102 0.315 0.197

0.207 0.000 0.000 0.017

0.033 0.003

0.001 0.016

Bus stop

0.904 0.470

0.545 0.010

0.050 0.349

*Using T-Test analysis

7. Conclusion

The perception on accessibility can influence the level of walkability in the neighbourhood area. Based on the analysis it can be concluded that residents' in Precinct 9 walked more compared to residents in Precinct 8. Moreover, this paper examines that individuals' perception of accessibility fraught with error as only one-third of the respondents on both sites correctly estimated time taken for them to reach the nearest community facilities/services from their home. This study also confirms that if the residents' are familiar with their route taken to reach the destination the perceptions on the time taken for the walk are more accurate. Unfortunately, this study only accumulates perceptions on walking time. Future research in this area may need as there are many other factors that can influence the level of walkability such as physical and environmental factors.

Acknowledgements

The writers would like to acknowledge the support given by Universiti Teknologi MARA during the carrying out of this research. This study was funded by Research Intensive Faculty (GRANT 600-RMI/DANA/5/3/RIF (62/2012)), MOHE provided by Research Management Institute, Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam, Malaysia.

References

Abley, S. (2005). "Walkability Scoping Paper". Retrieved March 04, 2011.

Azmi,D.I. & Karim, H.A. (2011). A Comparative Study of Walking Behaviour to Community Facilities in Low-Cost and Medium Cost Housing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 35, 619-628.

Barton, Grant and Guise (2003). Shaping Neighbourhoods :A Guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality.Spon Press: New York,US.

Burnett, K. P. and Briggs, R. (1975). Distance cognition and intra-urban movement. West Lakes Meetings, Association of American

Geographers. Carbondale, Illinois. Burnett, Pat. (1978). Time cognition and urban travel behavior. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography. 60(2), 107-115. Canter, D. and Stephen, K. Tagg. (1975) Distance estimation in cities. Environment and Behavior. 7(1), 59-80. Crompton, A. (2006). Perceived distance in the city as a function of time. Environment and Behavior. 38(2), 173-182. De Chiara, J. and Koppelman, L. (1929). Urban Planning and Design Criteria. New York: Litton Von Nostrand Reinhold Company Frank L, Andresen M, Schmid T. (2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars.

Am J Prev Med. 27(2), 87-95. Frank, L.D., Pivo, G., (1994). Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record 1466, 4^52.

Frank, et al. (2006). "Many Pathways from Land Use to Health". Retrieved March 06, 2011 from Journal of the American Planning Association.

Gebel, K. et al. (2009). Position statement: The builty environment and walking. The Heart Foundation's National Physical Activity

Committee. National Heart Foundation of Australia. Golledge, R. G., Briggs, R. & Demko, D. (1969) The configuration of distances in intra-urban space. Proceedings of the Association

of American Geographers. 1, 60-65. Kang, Yong-Soon, Herr, P. & Page, C. (2003). Time and distance: Asymmetries in consumer trip knowledge and judgments.

Journal of Consumer Research. 30, 420- 429. Katz, P. (1993). The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Krizek,K., Horning, J. & El-Geneidy, A. (2012). Perceptions of Accessibility to Neighbourhood Retail and Other Public Services. In

K. Geurs, K. Krizek & A. Ameriva (pp 96-117). Edward Elgar, London, UK. Lee, T.(1970). Perceived distance as a function of direction in the city. Environment and Behavior. 2, 40-51. Lowrey, R. A. (1973). A method for analyzing distance concepts of urban residents. in Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior, R. M. Downs and D. Stea, Editors. Aldine: Chicago. 338-360.

MacEachren, A. M. (1980). Travel time as the basis of cognitive distance. Professional Geographer. 32(1), 30-36.

Mumford, Lewis. (1956). Neighborhood and neighborhood unit. in The urban prospect, Lewis Mumford, Editor. Harcourt, Brace and World: New York. 56-78.

Nasar, J. L. et al. (1985). Out of sight further from mind: Destination visibility and distance perception. Environment and Behavior. 17 (5), 627-639.

Popp, M. M. et al. (2004). Walking with and without walking: Perception of distance in largescale urban areas in reality and in virtual reality. Presence. 13(1), 61-76.

Robinson, RVF and RW Vickerman. (1976). The demand for shopping travel: A theoretical and empirical study. Applied Economics. 8, 267-281.

Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J.F., Black, J., Chen, D. (2003).Neighbourhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. American Journal of Public Health. 93, 1552-1558.

Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD.(2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med. 25(2), 80-91.

Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2010). Research Metjods for Business : A Skill Building Approach. John Wiley & Son Ltd: United Kingdom.

Transportation Research Board.(2005). Does the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence. Washington DC.