De la Gauchetière Street, Montreal
Chinatown, New York City

In urban planning, walkability is the accessibility of amenities by foot.[1] It is based on the idea that urban spaces should be more than just transport corridors designed for maximum vehicle throughput. Instead, it should be relatively complete livable spaces that serve a variety of uses, users, and transportation modes and reduce the need for cars for travel.

The term "walkability" was primarily invented in the 1960s due to Jane Jacobs' revolution in urban studies. In recent years, walkability has become popular because of its health, economic, and environmental benefits.[2] It is an essential concept of sustainable urban design.[3] Factors influencing walkability include the presence or absence and quality of footpaths, sidewalks or other pedestrian rights-of-way, traffic and road conditions, land use patterns, building accessibility, and safety, among others.[4]


Mixed use pedestrian friendly street in Bitola, North Macedonia

One proposed definition for walkability is: "The extent to which the built environment is friendly to the presence of people living, shopping, visiting, enjoying or spending time in an area".[5] A study attempted to comprehensively and objectively measure subjective qualities of the urban street environment. Using ratings from an expert panel, it was possible to measure five urban design qualities in terms of physical characteristics of streets and their edges: imageability, enclosure, human scale, transparency and complexity.[6] Walkability relies on the interdependencies between density, mix, and access in synergy. The urban DMA (Density, Mix, Access) is a set of synergies between the ways cities concentrate people and buildings, how they mix different people and activities, and the access networks used to navigate through them.[7]

These factors cannot be taken singularly. Rather than an ideal functional mix, there is a mix of mixes and interdependencies between formal, social, and functional mixes. Likewise, walk-able access cannot be reduced to any singular measure of connectivity, permeability, or catchment but is dependent on destinations and geared to metropolitan access through public transit nodes. While DMA is based on walkability measures, popular "walk score" or "rate my street" websites offer more metrics to connect urban morphology with better environmental and health outcomes.


Density is an interrelated assemblage of buildings, populations, and street life. It is a crucial property of walkability because it concentrates more people and places within walkable distances.[8] There is difficulty determining density due to populations oscillating from the suburbs to the urban center.[7] Moreover, measures of density can differ dramatically for different morphologies and building typologies. Density may be conflated with building height, contributing to the confusion.

The ratio between the floor area and the site area is generally known as the Floor Area Ratio (FAR, also called Plot Ratio and Floor Space Index). For example, a ten-story building on 10% of the site has the same floor area as a single-story building with 100% site coverage.[7] Secondly, the measure of dwellings/hectare is common but particularly blunt. It depends on the functional mix, household size, and dwelling size in relation to building or population densities. Larger houses will produce higher building densities for the same population, and larger households will lead to higher populations for the same number of dwellings. In functionally mixed neighborhoods, housing will be just one component of the mix and therefore not a measure of building or population density. The census-based density of residents/hectare is another common measure, but it does not include those who work there.

Functional mix

This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. In particular, the use of "we" in multiple places outside of quotes ("we become", "we suggest"), and confusing language "mix of mixes". Please help clarify the section. There might be a discussion about this on the talk page. (February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Functional mix, like density, shortens the distances between wherever we are and where we need to be. The live/work/visit triangle constructs a field of possible relations between three primary functions that resonate with what economists have often called reproduction, production, and exchange (incorporating social exchange).[2] They also identify primary relations between people and urban space – we become "residents", "workers", and "visitors", respectively, in different locations in everyday life. The key shift here lies in focusing on the mix rather than their functions. Such mapping offers an empirical understanding of the mix that enables us to expose different kinds and levels of a mix. It is tempting to construct an index for an ideal mix measured by the degree of lightness as the mix approaches the center of the triangle. However, we[who?] suggest that the best cities comprise a mix of mixes. Our attention should focus instead on the corners of the triangle – the dysfunctional parts of cities where one can- not walk between living, work, and visiting functions.

While the functional mix is crucial to any approach to walkability, it is important to note here that function is itself but one dimension of the urban mix, including the formal and social mix. A formal mix emerges from how a city produces different plot sizes, which are linked to different building styles, floor plate sizes, and building heights.[7] While a small-grain urban fabric is linked to a more mixed neighborhood, large grains also need because some functions rely on those large grains to become part of the mix. The social mix has to do with how a good city brings together people of different ages, abilities, ethnicities, and social classes. Cities are places where differences rub together in walkable public spaces, and this mix of differences is fundamental to the production of urban vitality. Again, there is no single index for mix in its impact on walkability. The concept is fundamentally relational, both between functions and the formal and social mix sustaining them.

Access networks

British poster encouraging energy conservation during World War II

The access networks of a city enable and constrain pedestrian flows; it is the capacity or possibility to walk. Like density and mix, these are properties embodied in urban form and facilitate more efficient pedestrian flows. Access networks are also multi-modal and need to be understood from the perspective of those who choose between modes of walking, cycling, public transport, and cars. Public transport trips are generally coupled with walkable access to the transit stop. Walking will primarily be chosen for up to 10 minutes if it is the fastest mode and other factors are equal. Walking has the advantage that it is a much more predictable trip time than public transport or cars, where we have to allow for delays caused by poor service, congestion, and parking.[9]

Major infrastructural factors include access to mass transit, presence and quality of footpaths, buffers to moving traffic (planter strips, on-street parking or bike lanes) and pedestrian crossings, aesthetics, nearby local destinations, air quality, shade or sun in appropriate seasons, street furniture, traffic volume and speed.[4][10] and wind conditions. Walkability is also examined based on the surrounding built environment. Reid Ewing and Robert Cervero's five D's of the built environment—density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, and distance to transit—heavily influence an area's walkability.[11] Combinations of these factors influence an individual's decision to walk.[12]


This classic book by Jane Jacobs promoted walkability

Before cars and bicycles were mass-produced, walking was the main way to travel. It was the only way to get from place to place for much of human history.[13] In the 1920s, economic growth led to increased automobile manufacturing. Cars were also becoming more affordable, leading to the rise of the automobile during the Post–World War II economic expansion.[14] The detrimental effects of automobile emissions soon led to public concern over pollution. Alternatives, including improved public transportation and walking infrastructure, have attracted more attention from planners and policymakers. There is a correlation between the white exodus from racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban regions with the growth of an automobile-centric urban planning.[citation needed]

Jane Jacobs' classic book The Death and Life of Great American Cities[15] remains one of the most influential books in the history of American city planning, especially concerning the future developments of the walkability concept. She coined the terms "social capital", "mixed primary uses", and "eyes on the street", which were adopted professionally in urban design, sociology, and many other fields.

While there has been a push towards better walkability in cities in recent years, there are still many obstacles that need to be cleared to achieve more complete and cohesive communities where residents won't have to travel as far to get to where they need to go. For example, the average time it has taken American commuters to get to work has actually increased from 25 to 27.6 minutes,[citation needed] so much is still to be done if walkability is to be realized and a lessened reliance on cars comes into fruition.



Further information: Sedentary lifestyle

Walkability indices have been found to correlate with both lower Body Mass Index (BMI) and high levels of physical activity of local populations.[16][17] Physical activity can prevent chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, depression, and osteoporosis.[18] Thus for instance, an increase in neighborhood Walk Score has linked with both better Cardio metabolic risk profiles[19] and a decreased risk of heart-attacks.[20] The World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research released a report that new developments should be designed to encourage walking, on the grounds that walking contributes to a reduction of cancer.[21] A further justification for walkability is founded upon evolutionary and philosophical grounds, contending that gait is important to the cerebral development in humans.[22]

In addition, walkable neighborhoods have been linked to higher levels of happiness, health, trust, and social connections in comparison with more car-oriented places. [23]

In contrast to walkable environments, less walkable environments are associated with higher BMIs and higher rates of obesity. This is particularly true for the more car-dependent environments of US suburban sprawl.[24] Compared to walking and biking, driving as a commuting option is associated with higher levels of obesity.[25] There are well-established links between the design of an urban area (including its walkability and land use policy) and health outcomes for that community.[26]

Due to discrepancies between residents' health in inner city neighborhoods and suburban neighborhoods with similar walkability measures, further research is needed to find additional built environment factors in walkability indices.[27]

Walking bus in Třebíč, Czech Republic


Further information: Student transport and Walking bus

Walkability has also been found to have many socioeconomic benefits, including accessibility, cost savings both to individuals and to the public,[28] student transport (which can include walking buses), increased efficiency of land use, increased livability, economic benefits from improved public health, and economic development, among others.[29][30] The benefits of walkability are best guaranteed if the entire system of public corridors is walkable - not limited to certain specialized routes. More sidewalks and increased walkability can promote tourism and increase property value.[31]

In recent years, the demand for housing in a walkable urban context has increased. The term "Missing Middle Housing" as coined by Daniel Parolek of Opticos Design, Inc.,[32] refers to multi-unit housing types (such as duplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, and mansion apartments not bigger than a large house), which are integrated throughout most walkable Pre-1940s neighborhoods, but became much less common after World War II, hence the term "missing." These housing types are often integrated into blocks with primarily single-family homes, to provide diverse housing choices and generate enough density to support transit and locally-serving commercial amenities.

Auto-focused street design diminishes walking and needed "eyes on the street"[15]: 35  provided by the steady presence of people in an area. Walkability increases social interaction, mixing of populations, the average number of friends and associates where people live, reduced crime (with more people walking and watching over neighborhoods, open space and main streets), increased sense of pride, and increased volunteerism.

Socioeconomic factors contribute to willingness to choose walking over driving. Income, age, race, ethnicity, education, household status, and having children in a household all influence walking travel.[33]


One of benefits of improving walkability is the decrease of the automobile footprint in the community. Carbon emissions can be reduced if more people choose to walk rather than drive or use public transportation, so proponents of walkable cities describe improving walkability as an important tool for adapting cities to climate change. The benefits of less emissions include improved health conditions and quality of life, less smog, and less of a contribution to global climate change.[34]

Further, cities that developed under guiding philosophies like walkability typically see lower levels of noise pollution in their neighborhoods. This goes beyond just making quieter communities to live, less noise pollution can also mean greater biodiversity. Studies have shown that noise pollution can disrupt certain senses that animals rely on to find food, reproduce, avoid predators, etc. which can weaken ecosystems in an already human dominated environment. [35] [36] Society depends on these ecosystem for many ecological services such as provisioning, regulation, cultural/tourism, and supporting services [37] and any degradation of these services can go beyond just affecting the aesthetic of a neighborhood or community but can have serious implications for livability and wellbeing on entire regions.

Cities that have a relatively walkability score also tend to have a higher concentration of green spaces which facilitate a more walkable city. These green spaces can assist in regulatory ecological services such as flooding, improving the quality of both air and water, carbon sequestration, etc. all while also improving the attractiveness of the city or town in which it's implemented in.[38]

Increasing walkability

See also: Mobility transition

Hibberson St. in Gungahlin, Australian Capital Territory, in 2009
Hibberson St. in 2020, after a pedestrian-friendly plan carried out by the ACT Government[39][40]

Many communities have embraced pedestrian mobility as an alternative to older building practices that favor automobiles. This shift includes a belief that dependency on cars is ecologically unsustainable. Automobile-oriented environments engender dangerous conditions for motorists and pedestrians and are generally bereft of aesthetics.[41] A type of zoning called Form-based coding is a tool that some American cities, like Cincinnati, are employing to improve walkability.[42][43] The COVID-19 pandemic gave birth to proposals for radical change in the organization of the town, in particular Barcelona, being the elimination of the car and consequent pedestrianization of the whole city one of the critical elements, and proposing an inversion of the concept of the sidewalk.[44][45][46]

There are several ways to make a community more walkable:


One way of assessing and measuring walkability is to undertake a walking audit. An established and widely used walking audit tool is PERS (Pedestrian Environment Review System) which has been used extensively in the UK.[51]

A simple way to determine the walkability of a block, corridor or neighborhood is to count the number of people walking, lingering and engaging in optional activities within a space.[52] This process is a vast improvement upon pedestrian level of service (LOS) indicators, recommended within the Highway Capacity Manual.[53] However it may not translate well to non-Western locations where the idea of "optional" activities may be different.[54] In any case, the diversity of people, and especially the presence of children, seniors and people with disabilities, denotes the quality, completeness and health of a walkable space.[55]

A number of commercial walkability scores also exist:


A newly developing concept is the transit time map (sometimes called a transit shed map), which is a type of isochrone map.[59] These are maps (often online and interactive) that display the areas of a metropolis which can be reached from a given starting point, in a given amount of travel time. Such maps are useful for evaluating how well-connected a given address is to other possible urban destinations, or conversely, how large a territory can quickly get to a given address. The calculation of transit time maps is computationally intensive, and considerable work is being done on more efficient algorithms for quickly producing such maps.[60]

To be useful, the production of a transit time map must take into consideration detailed transit schedules, service frequency, time of day, and day of week.[61][62][63][64][65] Moreover, the recent development of computer vision and street view imagery has provided significant potential to automatically assess spaces for pedestrians from the ground level.[66]

See also


  1. ^ Lo, Ria Hutabarat (2009). "Walkability: what is it?". Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability. 2 (2): 145–166. doi:10.1080/17549170903092867. S2CID 144907703.
  2. ^ a b "Walkability Is Good for You",, 11 December 2014
  3. ^ "S. Grignaffini, S. Cappellanti, A. Cefalo, "Visualizing sustainability in urban conditions", WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 1, pp. 253-262, 10 Jun 2008". Archived from the original on 23 February 2012. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
  4. ^ a b Online TDM Encyclopedia chapter on pedestrian improvements
  5. ^ Abley, Stephen. "Walkability Scoping Paper" 21 March 2005. Retrieved 4/21/08
  6. ^ Ewing, Reid; Handy, Susan (2009). "Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability". Journal of Urban Design. 14 (1): 65–84. doi:10.1080/13574800802451155.
  7. ^ a b c d Dovey, Kim; Pafka, Elek (January 2020). "What is walkability? The urban DMA". Urban Studies. 57 (1): 93–108. Bibcode:2020UrbSt..57...93D. doi:10.1177/0042098018819727. hdl:11343/230627. ISSN 0042-0980. S2CID 159376367.
  8. ^ Mariana Darling, Emily (2017). Space for Community: Cohousing as an Alternative Density Model for Housing Seattle (PhD). University Of Washington.
  9. ^ Robertson, Margaret (2014). Sustainability Principles and Practice. Routledge. pp. ppl: 208–222. ISBN 9780203768747.
  10. ^ Ramirez; et al. (December 2006). "Indicators of Activity-Friendly Communities: An Evidence-Based Consensus Process". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. pp. 515–24.
  11. ^ Ewing, Reid and Cervero, Robert. "Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis", Journal of the American Planning Association, vol 76, no 3 (2010): 265-294.
  12. ^ Wang, Ke. "Causality Between Built Environment and Travel Behavior: Structural Equations Model Applied to Southern California." Transportation Research Record, no 2397 (2013): 80- 88.
  13. ^ Rich, Nathaniel (April 23, 2015). "The History of a City Underfoot". The New York Times Magazine. The New York Times Company. Retrieved November 22, 2015.
  14. ^ Hendee, Caitlin. "More on the cover story: A short history of walkable urbanism and transit-oriented development". Denver Business Journal.[1]
  15. ^ a b Jacobs, Jane (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-679-74195-X.
  16. ^ Frank; et al. (Winter 2006). "Many Pathways from Land Use to Health" (PDF). Journal of the American Planning Association. p. 77.
  17. ^ Frank; et al. (February 2005). "Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. pp. 117–25.
  18. ^ Gase, Lauren N., Paul A. Simon, et al.. "Public Awareness of and Support for Infrastructure Changes Designed to Increase Walking and Biking in Los Angeles County." Preventive Medicine 72 (2015): 70-75.
  19. ^ Méline, Julie; Chaix, Basile; Pannier, Bruno; Ogedegbe, Gbenga; Trasande, Leonardo; Athens, Jessica; Duncan, Dustin T. (2017-12-19). "Neighborhood walk score and selected Cardiometabolic factors in the French RECORD cohort study". BMC Public Health. 17 (1): 960. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4962-8. ISSN 1471-2458. PMC 5735827. PMID 29258476.
  20. ^ Mazumdar, Soumya; Learnihan, Vincent; Cochrane, Thomas; Phung, Hai; O'Connor, Bridget; Davey, Rachel (2016-12-01). "Is Walk Score associated with hospital admissions from chronic diseases? Evidence from a cross-sectional study in a high socioeconomic status Australian city-state". BMJ Open. 6 (12): e012548. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012548. ISSN 2044-6055. PMC 5168632. PMID 27932340.
  21. ^ "Cancer: Sarcoma, Carcinoma, Lymphoma, and Leukemia".
  22. ^ Stanford, Craig (2003) Upright: The Evolutionary Key to Becoming Human, Houghton-Mifflin: New York, pp. 122-171
  23. ^ Leyden, K.M., Hogan, M.J., D’Arcy, L., Bunting, B. and Bierema, S., 2024. Walkable neighborhoods: Linkages between place, health, and happiness in younger and older adults. Journal of the American Planning Association, 90(1), pp.101-114.
  24. ^ "Is Your City Making You Fat? How Urban Planning Can Address The Obesity Epidemic - UMBC: University Of Maryland, Baltimore County". 2020-02-20. Retrieved 2024-03-31.
  25. ^ King, Douglas M.; Jacobson, Sheldon H. (March 2017). "What Is Driving Obesity? A Review on the Connections Between Obesity and Motorized Transportation". Current Obesity Reports. 6 (1): 3–9. doi:10.1007/s13679-017-0238-y. ISSN 2162-4968. PMID 28243840.
  26. ^ Nieuwenhuijsen, Mark J. (July 2018). "Influence of urban and transport planning and the city environment on cardiovascular disease". Nature Reviews Cardiology. 15 (7): 432–438. doi:10.1038/s41569-018-0003-2. ISSN 1759-5002. PMID 29654256.
  27. ^ Lopez, Russel P. and H. Patricia Hynes (2006). "Obesity, physical activity, and the urban environment: public health research needs". Environmental Health. Vol. 5. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-5-25.
  28. ^ The Sixth Carbon Budget Surface Transport (PDF). UKCCC (Report). ...there is zero net cost to the economy of switching from cars to walking and cycling .... as the cost of provision of improved walking and cycling infrastructure is expected to be substantially outweighed by the benefits through reduced cost of travel, better air quality, lower congestion and improved health and wellbeing.
  29. ^ Todd Littman, "Economic Value of Walkability", Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Vol. 1828, 2003., Litman, Todd Alexander (2004-10-12). "Economic Value of Walkability" (PDF). Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
  30. ^ Baobeid, Abdulla; Koç, Muammer; Al-Ghamdi, Sami G. (2021). "Walkability and Its Relationships With Health, Sustainability, and Livability: Elements of Physical Environment and Evaluation Frameworks". Frontiers in Built Environment. 7. doi:10.3389/fbuil.2021.721218.
  31. ^ "Planning for Complete Communities in Delaware".
  32. ^ Parolek, Daniel. "Missing Middle Housing: Responding to the Demand for Walkable Urban Living". Opticos Design, Inc. Retrieved April 6, 2012.
  33. ^ Joh, Kenneth, Sandip Chakrabarti, Marlon G Boarnet, and Ayoung Woo. "The Walking Renaissance: A Longitudinal Analysis of Walking Travel in the Greater Los Angeles Area, USA." Sustainability 7, no. 7 (2015): 8985-9011.
  34. ^ "Walkable Cities @ProjectDrawdown #ClimateSolutions". Project Drawdown. 2020-02-06. Retrieved 2020-11-27.
  35. ^ "How the built environment influences walking and cycling", Promoting walking and cycling, Bristol University Press, pp. 67–84, doi:10.2307/j.ctt1t6p71q.11, retrieved 2022-05-30
  36. ^ "How does walking and cycling help to protect the environment?". Sustrans. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  37. ^ "Ecosystem Services". National Wildlife Federation. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  38. ^ Cartier, Kimberly M. S. (2021-05-21). "Growing Equity in City Green Space". Eos. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  39. ^ "Gungahlin's pedestrian-friendly plan tabled in Assembly". The Canberra Times. 2011-11-15. Retrieved 2024-01-18.
  40. ^ "Pedestrian Crossing and Safety at the Intersection of Gribble and Hibberson Street ACT Legislative Assembly". Retrieved 2024-01-18.
  41. ^ Zehner, Ozzie (2012). Green Illusions. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 263–300.
  42. ^ Yung, John. "Here's how Cincinnati's form-based codes are designed to spur redevelopment". Retrieved April 16, 2018.
  43. ^ "Cincinnati Form-Based Code". Form-Based Codes Institute.
  44. ^ Maiztegui, Belén (2020-06-18). "Manifiesto por la reorganización de la ciudad tras el COVID-19" (in Spanish). Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  45. ^ Argemí, Anna (2020-05-08). "Por una Barcelona menos mercantilizada y más humana" (in Spanish). Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  46. ^ Paolini, Massimo (2020-04-20). "Manifesto for the Reorganisation of the City after COVID19". Retrieved 2021-05-01.
  47. ^ "safe routes to transit".
  48. ^ "Accessible Rights-of-Way: A Design Guide," [2] 1999
  49. ^ Banerjee, Tridib et al. "Walking to School: The Experience of Children in Inner City Los Angeles and Implications for Policy." Journal of Planning Education and Research 34, no 2 (2014): 123-140.
  50. ^ Parker, Kim; Horowitz, Juliana Menasce; Minkin, Rachel (2022-02-16). "COVID-19 Pandemic Continues To Reshape Work in America". Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  51. ^ "Davies, A. and Clark, S. (2009) Identifying and prioritising walking investment through the PERS audit tool - Walk21 Proceedings, 10th International Conference for Walking, New York, USA, October 2009" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-03-01.
  52. ^ Gehl, J. and Gemzoe, L. (1996). Public spaces and public life. Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press
  53. ^ Transportation Research Board (2000). Highway capacity manual: HCM2000. Washington D.C.: National Research Council
  54. ^ Hutabarat Lo, R. (2009). "Walkability: what is it?", Journal of Urbanism Vol. 2, No. 2, pp 145-166.
  55. ^ Zehner, Ozzie (2012). Green Illusions. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 250–51, 265–66.
  56. ^ ", Walking the Walk (2009)".
  57. ^ "Walk Score Methodology". Walk Score.
  58. ^ "Rating walkability by combining Open Data and Crowdsourcing". June 18, 2011.
  59. ^ Dovey, K., Woodcock, I. & Pike, L. (2017) 'Isochrone Mapping of Urban Transport', Planning Practice & Research, 32(4): 402-416. doi:10.1080/02697459.2017.1329487
  60. ^ Steiniger, S., Poorazizi, M.E. & Hunter, A.J.S (2013) 'WalkYourPlace - evaluating neighbourhood accessibility at street level', UDMS 2013 - Proceedings of the 29th Urban Data Management Symposium,
  61. ^ "Transit Time Map: Bay Area, 9:00am". Walk Score. Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  62. ^ Wehrmeyer, Stefan. "Dynamic Public Transport Travel Time Maps". Mapnificent. Stefan Wehrmeyer. Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  63. ^ Roth, Matthew (12 March 2009). "Walk Score Updates Transit Travel Map for Bay Area". Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  64. ^ Walker, Jarrett (24 January 2011). "Beyond "transit scores": an exchange with Matt Lerner". Human Transit. Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  65. ^ Wehrmeyer, Stefan (31 October 2010). "A Mapnificent World". On the Things I Do. Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  66. ^ Ito, K.; Biljecki, F. (2021). "Assessing bikeability with street view imagery and computer vision". Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 132: 103371. arXiv:2105.08499. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2021.103371. S2CID 234763005.

Further reading