Assessing the Factors Associated with Urban Mobility Behaviour: Case studies from Alexandrian Neighborhoods, Egypt
Sarah M. Sabry1, Hany M. Ayad2, Dina M. Saadallah3
1Sarah M. Sabry, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt.
2Hany M. Ayad, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt.
3Dina M. Saadallah, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt.
Manuscript received on 15 February 2017 | Revised Manuscript received on 22 February 2017 | Manuscript Published on 28 February 2017 | PP: 56-69 | Volume-6 Issue-3, February 2017 | Retrieval Number: C4830026317/17©BEIESP
Open Access | Editorial and Publishing Policies | Cite | Mendeley | Indexing and Abstracting
© The Authors. Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Abstract: With the rapid spread of urbanization, cities started to witness challenges related to its streets. It is becoming imperative that the mobility should be managed appropriately to minimize its negative impacts on urban areas. Unfortunately, city leaders in many developing countries like Egypt are following the same Car-Oriented development patterns made by cities in developed countries. Ironically, the developed countries are trying to recover from a car dominated development era by re-allocating road space for public and non-motorized transport. In this respect, this research aims at exploring the key aspects and factors that affect individuals’ mobility choices in Egypt. It focuses on the socio-demographic, attitudinal and physical factors that are associated with commuters’ mobility behaviour and their choice of mode for daily trips. Two neighborhoods in Alexandria are selected for comparative and analytical analyses . First, a survey is carried out in the two selected areas. Second, Pearson’s Chi-square χ2 test is performed to explore the significant differences of commuter’s attitudinal, personal and built environment factors between the two areas. Finally, crosstabulation distribution of categorical variables are presented in terms of absolute frequencies, p-values from Pearson’s Chisquare χ2 test and t-test so as to look for the association of the urban form and non-urban form factors to mobility choices.
Keywords: Sustainable Urban Mobility (SUM) – Travel Behaviour – Mode Choice –Non-Uurban Form Factors – Built Environment Factors – TOD Development – Sustainable neighborhoods.
Scope of the Article: Case Study and Experience Reports