Pedestrians are particularly vulnerable road users within the urban environment. Many studies have examined the factors that contribute to the frequency and severity of collisions, but limited research has examined the influence of the built environment on pedestrian injury severity. This study used the Halifax regional municipality in Nova Scotia, Canada, as a case study to examine the effect of the built environment on the injury severity of pedestrians. Two ordered response models were used: a conventionally ordered probit model and a hierarchical ordered probit (HOPIT) model, which accommodated unobserved heterogeneity because the thresholds could vary across observations. In the HOPIT model fit in this study, the threshold covariates varied with whether the collision occurred at an intersection and with the number of walking commuters in the neighborhood. Built environment contributing factors, including a variety of street pattern classifications, land use types, transit supply, and demographic characteristics, were examined with other variables (e.g., pedestrian and driver characteristics, collision characteristics, environmental conditions). Nova Scotia Collision Record Database data were used for the years 2007 to 2011 to develop the ordered response models of the injury severity of pedestrians. The study found personal and collision characteristics to be significant to explain the injury severity outcomes of pedestrians. In addition, environmental characteristics (e.g., land use type, presence of activity centers, demographic attributes) were found to influence injury severity outcomes. The study results may help inform policy development to improve pedestrian safety in Nova Scotia.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ZegeerC. V., and BushellM.. Pedestrian Crash Trends and Potential Countermeasures from Around the World. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2012, pp. 3–11.
2.
DoukasG., OlivierJ., PoulosR., and GrzebietaR.. Exploring Differential Trends in Severe and Fatal Child Pedestrian Injury in New South Wales, Australia, 1997–2006. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2010, pp. 1705–1711.
3.
QuistbergD. A., KoepsellT. D., BoyleL. N., MirandaJ. J., JohnstonB. D., and EbelB. E.. Pedestrian Signalization and the Risk of Pedestrian–Motor Vehicle Collision in Lima, Peru. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 70, 2014, pp. 273–281.
4.
Miranda-MorenoL. F., MorencyP., and El-GeneidyA. M.. The Link Between Built Environment, Pedestrian Activity, and Pedestrian– Vehicle Collision Occurrence at Signalized Intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1624–1634.
5.
AvineriE., DavidS., and SusiloY. O.. Pedestrians' Behaviour in Cross Walks: The Effects of Fear of Falling and Age. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2012, pp. 30–34.
6.
HaH., and ThillJ. C.. Analysis of Traffic Hazard Intensity: A Spatial Epidemiology Case Study of Urban Pedestrians. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2011, pp. 230–240.
7.
ChoG., RodriguezD. A., and KhattakA. J.. The Role of the Built Environment in Explaining Safety Between Perceived and Actual Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2009, pp. 692–702.
8.
UlfarssonG. F., KimS., and BoothK. M.. Analyzing Fault in Pedestrian– Motor Vehicle Crashes in North Carolina. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 42. No. 6, 2010, pp. 1805–1813.
9.
KimK., BrunnerI. M., and YamashitaE.. Modeling Violation of Hawaii's Crosswalk Law. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2008, pp. 894–904.
10.
RosenE., KallhammerJ. E., ErikssonD., NentwichM., FredrikssonR., and SmithK.. Pedestrian Injury Mitigation by Autonomous Breaking. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2010, pp. 1949–1957.
11.
CliftonK., and Kreamer-FultsK.. An Examination of the Environmental Attributes Associated with Pedestrian–Vehicular Crashes Near Public Schools. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2007, pp. 708–715.
12.
WierM., WeintraubJ., HumphreysE. H., SetoE., and BhatiaR.. An Area-Level Model of Vehicle–Pedestrian Injury Collisions with Implications for Land Use and Transportation Planning. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2009, pp. 137–145.
13.
MohamedM. G., SaunierN., Miranda-MorenoL. F., and UkkusuriS. V.. A Clustering Regression Approach: A Comprehensive Injury Severity Analysis of Pedestrian–Vehicle Crashes in New York, U.S., and Montreal, Canada. Safety Science, Vol. 54, 2013, pp. 27–37.
14.
YasminS., EluruN., and UkkusuriS. V.. Alternative Ordered Response Frameworks for Examining Pedestrian Injury Severity in New York City. Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2014, pp. 275–300.
15.
RosenE., StigsonH., and SanderU.. Literature Review of Pedestrian Fatality Risk as a Function of Car Impact Speed. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2011, pp. 25–33.
16.
AzizH. M. A., UkkusuriV. S., and HasanS.. Exploring the Determinants of Pedestrian–Vehicle Crash Severity in New York City. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 50, 2013, pp. 1298–1309.
17.
RoudsariB. S., MockC. N., KaufmanR., GrossmanD., HenaryB. Y., and CrandallJ.. Pedestrian Crashes: Higher Injury Severity and Mortality Rate for Light Truck Vehicles Compared with Passenger Vehicles. Injury Prevention, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2004, pp. 154–158.
18.
AbayK. A.Examining Pedestrian-Injury Severity Using Alternative Disaggregate Models. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2013, pp. 123–136.
19.
BallesterosM. F., DischingerP. C., and LangenbergP.. Pedestrian Injuries and Vehicle Type in Maryland, 1995–1999. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2004, pp. 73–81.
20.
EluruN., BhatC. R., and HensherD. A.. A Mixed Generalized Ordered Response Model for Examining Pedestrian and Bicyclist Injury Severity Level in Traffic Crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2008, pp. 1033–1054.
21.
LeeC., and Abdel-AtyM.. Comprehensive Analysis of Vehicle– Pedestrian Crashes at Intersections in Florida. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2005, pp. 775–786.
22.
MoudonA. V., LinL., JiaoJ., HurvitzP., and ReevesP.. The Risk of Pedestrian Injury and Fatality in Collisions with Motor Vehicles, a Social Ecological Study of State Routes and City Streets in King County, Washington. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2011, pp. 11–24.
23.
RifaatS. M., TayR., and de BarrosA.. Effect of Street Pattern on the Severity of Crashes Involving Vulnerable Road Users. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2011, pp. 276–283.
24.
SzeN. N., and WongS. C.. Diagnostic Analysis of the Logistic Model for Pedestrian Injury Severity in Traffic Crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2007, pp. 1267–1278.
25.
TefftB. C.Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of Severe Injury or Death. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 50, 2013, pp. 871–878.
26.
ZajacS. S., and IvanJ. N.. Factors Influencing Injury Severity of Motor Vehicle Crossing Pedestrian Crashes in Rural Connecticut. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2003, pp. 369–379.
27.
ZahabiS. A. H., StraussJ., ManaughK., and Miranda-MorenoL. F.. Estimating Potential Effect of Speed Limits, Built Environment, and Other Factors on Severity of Pedestrian and Cyclist Injuries in Crashes. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2247, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 81–90.
28.
KwigizileV., SandoT., and ChimbaD.. Inconsistencies of Ordered and Unordered Probability Models for Pedestrian Injury Severity. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2264, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 110–118.
29.
TayR., ChoiJ., KattanL., and KhanA.. A Multinomial Logit Model of Pedestrian–Vehicle Crash Severity. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2011, pp. 233–249.
30.
KimJ. K., UlfarssonG. F., ShankarV. N., and ManneringF. L.. A Note on Modeling Pedestrian-Injury Severity in Motor-Vehicle Crashes with the Mixed Logit Model. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2010, pp. 1751–1758.
31.
CliftonK. J., BurnierC. V., and AkarG.. Severity of Injury Resulting from Pedestrian–Vehicle Crashes: What Can We Learn from Examining the Built Environment?Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment Vol. 14, No. 6, 2009, pp. 425–436.
32.
GreeneW. H., and HensherD. A.. Ordered Choice, Heterogeneity Attribute Processing. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2010, pp. 264–331.
33.
NolandR. B., KleinN. J., and TulachN. K.. Do Lower Income Areas Have More Pedestrian Casualties?Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 59, 2013, pp. 337–345.
