CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Urban Transport and AccessibilityTraffic and Road SafetyCrime Patterns and Interventions

Do university students’ security perceptions influence their walking preferences and their walking activity? A case study of Granada (Spain)

Open access
Lizárraga, Carmen, Martín-Blanco, Cathaysa, Castillo-Pérez, Isabel, Chica-Olmo, Jorge·2022·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su14031880
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A sustainable city must be a safe place for its inhabitants when walking, with the absence of fear of crime being one of its main attributes. Although perceived insecurity is one of the main deterrents of walking activity, this relationship requires some clarification in environments which are walkable and safe, with low crime rates. This article contributes to the evidence for the influence of perceived security on walking activity and, as a novel aspect, also analyzes the effects of perceived security on walking as the preferred travel mode. In order to study this relationship, we use a method that combines non-linear principal component analysis (NLPCA) and a logit model (LM). The data are taken from a survey of university students carried out in the city of Granada. Results show that gender and perceived security have a greater effect on the choice of walking as the preferred travel mode, while location factors have significantly more weight in the explanation of the choice of walking as the most usual travel mode. These findings may be extended to other urban areas and can be of use for the implementation of urban policies aimed at designing the built environment to develop more sustainable cities.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su14031880

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Barriers to walking, such as absence of people, poor street lighting, or walking along unfamiliar locations, had a significant impact on lowering women's perceived safety.

    “The study also concluded that barriers to walking, such as absence of people, poor street lighting, or walking along unfamiliar lo­ cations, had a significant impact on lowering women's perceived safety.”

    From Women's perceived safety in public places and public transport: A narrative review of contributing factors and measurement methods (2025) · cites this paper as Lizárraga et al., 2022

    The Discussion and Conclusions (section 5) identifies absence of people and poor street lighting as barriers and finds that deterrents significantly affect students’ walking preferences. The Theoretical Review (section 2) also links poor lighting to feelings of insecurity and describes women as more sensitive to built-environment conditions. But the paper does not conclude that these three barriers significantly lowered women’s perceived safety: it says “walking along a conflictive area,” not an unfamiliar location, and its significant result concerns walking preferences among students, not women’s safety perceptions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Lizárraga et al. (2022) concluded that the perception of safety in the walking environment is attributed to the spaciousness of walking paths, presence of mixed-use commercial and retail activity, segregated pedestrian zones, street lighting, high density of people, and the upkeep of the area.

    “Another study conducted by Liz ´ arraga et al. (2022) also concluded that the perception of safety in the walking environment is attributed to the spaciousness of walking paths, presence of mixed-use commercial and retail activity, segregated pedestrian zones, street lighting, high density of people, and the upkeep of the area.”

    From Women's perceived safety in public places and public transport: A narrative review of contributing factors and measurement methods (2025) · cites this paper as Lizárraga et al., 2022

  • Deterrents to the walking environment played a significant role in lowering the perception of safety.

    “Deterrents to the walking environment played a significant role in lowering the perception of safety.”

    From Women's perceived safety in public places and public transport: A narrative review of contributing factors and measurement methods (2025) · cites this paper as Lizárraga et al., 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 91

  1. Habibian, M.; Hosseinzadeh, A. Walkability index across trip purposes. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 42, 216-225. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Brand, C.; Goodman, A.; Ogilvie, D. Evaluating the impacts of new walking and cycling infrastructure on carbon dioxide emissions from motorized travel: A controlled longitudinal study. Appl. Energy 2014, 128, 284-295. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  3. Arellana, J.; Saltarín, M.; Larrañaga, A.M.; Alvarez, V.; Henao, C.A. Urban walkability considering pedestrians' perceptions of the built environment: A 10-year review and a case study in a medium-sized city in Latin America. Transp. Rev. 2019, 40, 183-203. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Fonseca, F.; Ribeiro, P.J.G.; Conticelli, E.; Jabbari, M.; Papageorgiou, G.; Tondelli, S.; Ramos, R.A.R. Built environment attributes and their influence on walkability. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2021, 1-20. [CrossRef] · DOI
  5. Ruiz-Padillo, A.; Pasqual, F.; Uriarte, A.; Cybis, H. Application of multi-criteria decision analysis methods for assessing walkability: A case study in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Transp. Res. PART-Transp. Environ. 2018, 63, 855-871. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Abdulla, K.M.A.; Abdelmonem, M.G.; Selim, G. Walkability in historic urban spaces: Testing the safety and security in Martyrs' Square in Tripoli. Archnet-IJAR 2017, 11, 163-177. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Li, F.; Fisher, K.J.; Brownson, R.C.; Bosworth, M. Multilevel modelling of built environment characteristics related to neighbour- hood walking activity in older adults. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2005, 59, 558-564. [CrossRef] · DOI
  8. Handy, S.; Cao, X.; Mokhtarian, P.L. Self-Selection in the Relationship between the Built Environment and Walking: Empirical Evidence from Northern California. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2006, 72, 55-74. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Jore, S.H. The Conceptual and Scientific Demarcation of Security in Contrast to Safety. Eur. J. Secur. Res. 2019, 4, 157-174. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Shaer, A.; Rezaei, M.; Moghani Rahimi, B.; Shaer, F. Examining the associations between perceived built environment and active travel, before and after the COVID-19 outbreak in Shiraz city, Iran. Cities 2021, 115, 103255. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Adkins, A.; Barillas-Longoria, G.; Nevárez Martínez, D.; Ingram, M. Differences in social and physical dimensions of per- ceived walkability in Mexican American and non-hispanic white walking environments in Tucson, Arizona. J. Transp. Health 2019, 14, 100585. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Foster, S.; Giles-Corti, B.; Knuiman, M. Does Fear of Crime Discourage Walkers? A Social-Ecological Exploration of Fear as a Deterrent to Walking. Environ. Behav. 2014, 46, 698-717. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Larrañaga, A.M.; Rizzi, L.I.; Arellana, J.; Strambi, O.; Cybis, H.B.B. The influence of built environment and travel attitudes on walking: A case study of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016, 10, 332-342. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Lucchesi, S.; Larranaga, A.; Ochoa, J.; Samios, A.; Cybis, H. The role of security and walkability in subjective wellbeing: A multigroup analysis among different age cohorts. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2021, 40, 100559. [CrossRef] · DOI
  15. Cozens, P. Crime prevention through environmental design in Western Australia: Planning for sustainable urban futures. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2008, 3, 272-292. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Ceccato, V.; Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Fear of Sexual Harassment and Its Impact on Safety Perceptions in Transit Environments: A Global Perspective. Violence Women 2021, 28, 26-48. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  17. Leslie, E.; Saelens, B.; Frank, L.; Owen, N.; Bauman, A.; Coffee, N.; Hugo, G. Residents' perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighbourhoods: A pilot study. Health Place 2005, 11, 227-236. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Valera, S.; Guàrdia, J. Perceived insecurity and fear of crime in a city with low-crime rates. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38, 195-205. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Mason, P.; Kearns, A.; Bond, L. Neighbourhood walking and regeneration in deprived communities. Health Place 2011, 17, 727-737. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  20. Zhao, L.; Shen, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Sheng, F. Study on the Impact of the Objective Characteristics and Subjective Perception of the Built Environment on Residents' Physical Activities in Fuzhou, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 329. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Echeverria, S.E. Reliability of Self-Reported Neighborhood Characteristics. J. Urban Health Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 2004, 81, 682-701. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  22. Loukaitou-Sideris, A.; Eck, J.E. Crime prevention and active living. Am. J. Health Promot. AJHP 2007, 21 (Suppl. S4), 380-389. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  23. Kerr, Z.; Evenson, K.R.; Moore, K.; Block, R.; Diez Roux, A.V. Changes in Walking Associated with Perceived Neighborhood Safety and Police-Recorded Crime: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Prev. Med. 2015, 73, 88-93. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Karim, H.A.; Azmi, D.I. Convenience and Safety of Walking Experience in Putrajaya Neighbourhood Area. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 101, 318-327. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Shashank, A.; Schuurman, N. Unpacking walkability indices and their inherent assumptions. Health Place 2019, 55, 145-154. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. Basu, N.; Haque, M.M.; King, M.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. The unequal gender effects of the suburban built environment on perceptions of security. J. Transp. Health 2021, 23, 101243. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Koskela, H.; Pain, R. Revisiting fear and place: Women's fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum 2000, 31, 269-280. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Bianco, M.; Lawson, C. Trip Chaining, Childcare, and Personal Safety. In Proceedings of the Women's Travel Issues Second National Conference; Report FHWA-PL-97-024, FHWA.
  29. Clifton, K.; Livi, A. Gender differences in walking behavior, attitudes about walking, and perceptions of the environment in three Maryland communities. In Proceedings of the Conference on Research on Women's Issues in Transportation, Chicago, IL, USA, 18-20 November 2004; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA; Volume 2, pp. 79-88.
  30. Capasso da Silva, D.; Rodrigues da Silva, A. Sustainable modes and violence: Perceived safety and exposure to crimes on trips to and from a Brazilian university campus. J. Transp. Health 2020, 16, 100817. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Hewawasam, C.; Abeysinghe, U.; Saparamdu, S. Assessing factors affecting university students' preference of walking; comparing university of Moratuwa & university of Sri Jayewardenepura. 2020. In Proceedings of the FARU 2020 Conference Proceedings, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, 6-9 November 2020.
  32. Mark, L.; Heinrichs, D. More than time and money -Influences on mobility of low-income women in the Villa 20 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. J. Transp. Health 2019, 15, 100652. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Taleai, M.; Taheri Amiri, E. Spatial multi-criteria and multi-scale evaluation of walkability potential at street segment level: A case study of tehran. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 31, 37-50. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Roof, K.; Oleru, N. Public Health: Seattle and King County's Push for the Built Environment. J. Environ. Health 2008, 71, 24-27.
  35. Jacobs, J.; Backholer, K.; Strugnell, C.; Allender, S.; Nichols, M. Socio-economic and Regional Differences in Walkability and Greenspace around Primary Schools: A Census of Australian Primary School Neighbourhoods. J. Community Health 2021, 46, 98-107. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Liao, B.; van den Berg, P.E.W.; van Wesemael, P.J.V.; Arentze, T.A. Empirical analysis of walkability using data from the Netherlands. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2020, 85, 102390. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. Wang, H.; Yang, Y. Neighbourhood walkability: A review and bibliometric analysis. Cities 2019, 93, 43-61. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Forsyth, A.; Southworth, M. Cities Afoot-Pedestrians, Walkability and Urban Design. J. Urban Des. 2008, 13, 1-3. [CrossRef] · DOI
  39. Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the Built Environment. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2010, 76, 265-294. [CrossRef] · DOI
  40. Cervero, R.; Kockelman, K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 1997, 2, 199-219. [CrossRef] · DOI
  41. Frank, L.D.; Schmid, T.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Chapman, J.; Saelens, B.E. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28 (Suppl. S2), 117-125. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  42. Kerr, J.; Norman, G.; Millstein, R.; Adams, M.A.; Morgan, C.; Langer, R.D.; Allison, M. Neighborhood environment and physical activity among older women: Findings from the San Diego cohort of the women's health initiative. J. Phys. Act Health 2014, 11, 1070-1077. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  43. Huang, R.; Moudon, A.V.; Zhou, C.; Saelens, B.E. Higher residential and employment densities are associated with more objectively measured walking in the home neighborhood. J. Transp. Health 2019, 12, 142-151. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  44. Ribeiro, A.I.; Hoffimann, E. Development of a Neighbourhood Walkability Index for Porto Metropolitan Area. How Strongly Is Walkability Associated with Walking for Transport? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2767. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  45. Marquet, O.; Miralles-Guasch, C. The Walkable city and the importance of the proximity environments for Barcelona's everyday mobility. Cities 2015, 42, 258-266. [CrossRef] · DOI
  46. Yang, Y.; Diez Roux, A.V.; Auchincloss, A.H.; Rodriguez, D.A.; Brown, D.G. Exploring walking differences by socioeconomic status using a spatial agent-based model. Health Place 2012, 18, 96-99. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  47. Boer, R.; Zheng, Y.; Overton, A.; Ridgeway, G.K.; Cohen, D.A. Neighborhood Design and Walking Trips in Ten, U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2007, 32, 298-304. [CrossRef] · DOI
  48. Olszewski, P.; Wibowo, S.S. Using equivalent walking distance to assess pedestrian accessibility to transit stations in Singapore. Transp. Res. Rec. 2005, 38-45. [CrossRef] · DOI
  49. Park, S.; Kang, J.; Choi, K. Finding determinants of transit users' walking and biking access trips to the station: A pilot case study. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 18, 651-658. [CrossRef] · DOI
  50. Oyeyemi, A.L.; Conway, T.L.; Adedoyin, R.A.; Akinroye, K.K.; Aryeetey, R.; Assah, F.; Cain, K.L.; Gavand, K.A.; Kasoma, S.S.; Kolbe-Alexander, T.L.; et al. Construct Validity of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale for Africa. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2017, 49, 482-491. [CrossRef] · DOI
  51. Larranaga, A.M.; Arellana, J.; Rizzi, L.I.; Strambi, O.; Cybis, H.B.B. Using best-worst scaling to identify barriers to walkability: A study of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Transportation 2019, 46, 2347-2379. [CrossRef] · DOI
  52. Moura, F.; Cambra, P.; Gonçalves, A.B. Measuring walkability for distinct pedestrian groups with a participatory assessment method: A case study in Lisbon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 282-296. [CrossRef] · DOI
  53. Moayedi, F.; Zakaria, R.; Bigah, Y.; Mustaffar, M.; Othman, C.; Puan, O.; Klufallah, M.; Zen, I.S. Conceptualising the Indicators of Walkability for Sustainable Transportation. J. Teknol. Sci. Eng. 2013, 65, 2180-3722. [CrossRef] · DOI
  54. Villaveces, A.; Nieto, L.A.; Ortega, D.; Ríos, J.F.; Medina, J.J.; Gutiérrez, M.I.; Rodríguez, D. Pedestrians' perceptions of walkability and safety in relation to the built environment in Cali, Colombia, 2009-10. Inj. Prev. 2012, 18, 291-297. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  55. Calonge-Reillo, F. More fear, less walking: Taking a walk in fortified housing environments in urban Mexico. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021. [CrossRef] · DOI
  56. Carlson, J.A.; Frank, L.D.; Ulmer, J.; Conway, T.L.; Saelens, B.E.; Cain, K.L.; Sallis, J.F. Work and Home Neighborhood Design and Physical Activity. Am. J. Health Promot. 2018, 32, 1723-1729. [CrossRef] · DOI
  57. Adlakha, D.; Hipp, J.A.; Brownson, R.C. Neighborhood-based differences in walkability, physical activity, and weight status in India. J. Transp. Health. 2016, 3, 485-499. [CrossRef] · DOI
  58. Frank, L.; Giles-Corti, B.; Ewing, R. The influence of the built environment on transport and health. J. Transp. Health 2016, 3, 423-425. [CrossRef] · DOI
  59. Lewis, D.A.; Maxfield, M.G. Fear in the Neighborhoods: An Investigation of the Impact of Crime. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 1980, 17, 160-189. [CrossRef] · DOI
  60. Schroeder, H.W.; Anderson, L.M. Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. J. Leis Res. 1984, 16, 178-194. [CrossRef] · DOI
  61. Van Soomeren, P. Safe and Secure Cities. The physical urban environment and reduction of urban insecurity: A general introduction. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Reduction of Urban Insecurity, Barcelona, Spain, 17-20 November 1987.
  62. Pouliou, T.; Elliott, S.J.; Paez, A.; Newbold, K.B. Building obesity in Canada: Understanding the individual-and neighbourhood- level determinants using a multi-level approach. Geospatial Health 2014, 9, 45-55. [CrossRef] · DOI
  63. Shach-Pinsly, D.; Ganor, T. A New Approach for Assessing Secure and Vulnerable Areas in Central Urban Neighborhoods Based on Social-Groups' Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1174. [CrossRef] · DOI
  64. Mendes de Leon, C.F.; Cagney, K.A.; Bienias, J.L.; Barnes, L.L.; Skarupski, K.A.; Scherr, P.A.; Evans, D.A. Neighborhood Social Cohesion and Disorder in Relation to Walking in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Multilevel Analysis. J. Aging Health 2009, 21, 155-171. [CrossRef] · DOI
  65. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Is it safe to walk? Neighborhood safety and security considerations and their effects on walking. J. Plan. Lit. 2006, 20, 219-232. [CrossRef] · DOI
  66. Ottoni, C.A.; Sims-Gould, J.; Winters, M. Safety perceptions of older adults on an urban greenway: Interplay of the social and built environment. Health Place 2021, 70, 102605. [CrossRef] · DOI
  67. Yen, I.H.; Fandel Flood, J.; Thompson, H.; Anderson, L.A.; Wong, G. How Design of Places Promotes or Inhibits Mobility of Older Adults: Realist Synthesis of 20 Years of Research. J Aging Health 2014, 26, 1340-1372. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  68. Foster, C.; Hillsdon, M.; Thorogood, M. Environmental perceptions and walking in English adults. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2004, 58, 924-928. [CrossRef] · DOI
  69. Gim, T.-H.T.; Ko, J. Maximum Likelihood and Firth Logistic Regression of the Pedestrian Route Choice. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2017, 40, 616-637. [CrossRef] · DOI
  70. Craig, C.L.; Brownson, R.C.; Cragg, S.E.; Dunn, A.L. Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: A study examining walking to work. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 23 (Suppl. S2), 36-43. [CrossRef] · DOI
  71. Kelly, C.E.; Tight, M.R.; Hodgson, F.C.; Page, M.W. A comparison of three methods for assessing the walkability of the pedestrian environment. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1500-1508. [CrossRef] · DOI
  72. Pain, R.; MacFarlane, R.; Turner, K.; Gill, S. 'When, Where, if, and but': Qualifying GIS and the Effect of Streetlighting on Crime and Fear. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space 2006, 38, 2055-2074. [CrossRef] · DOI
  73. Potgieter, L.J.; Gaertner, M.; O'Farrell, P.J.; Richardson, D.M. Does vegetation structure influence criminal activity? Insights from Cape Town, South Africa. Front. Biogeogr. 2019, 11, 1-15. [CrossRef] · DOI
  74. Hogendorf, M.; Oude Groeniger, J.; Noordzij, J.M.; Beenackers, M.A.; van Lenthe, F.J. Longitudinal effects of urban green space on walking and cycling: A fixed effects analysis. Health Place 2020, 61, 102264. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  75. Kelly, E. What makes women safe? Hous. Rev. 1986, 35, 202-203.
  76. Warr, M. Dangerous Situations: Social Context and Fear of Victimization*. Soc. Forces 1990, 68, 891-907. [CrossRef] · DOI
  77. Börjesson, M. Valuing perceived insecurity associated with use of and access to public transport. Transp. Policy 2012, 22, 1-10. [CrossRef] · DOI
  78. Lee, S.; Han, M.; Rhee, K.; Bae, B. Identification of Factors Affecting Pedestrian Satisfaction toward Land Use and Street Type. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10725. [CrossRef] · DOI
  79. Hale, C. Fear of Crime: A Review of the Literature. Int. Rev. Vict. 1996, 4, 79-150. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  80. Hirtenlehner, H.; Farrall, S. Is the 'Shadow of Sexual Assault' Responsible for Women's Higher Fear of Burglary? Br. J. Criminol. 2014, 54, 1167-1185. [CrossRef] · DOI
  81. Otis, M.D. Perceptions of Victimization Risk and Fear of Crime among Lesbians and Gay Men. J. Interpers. Violence 2007, 22, 198-217. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  82. Yates, A.; Ceccato, V. Individual and spatial dimensions of women's fear of crime: A Scandinavian study case. Int. J. Comp. Appl. Crim. Justice 2020, 44, 277-292. [CrossRef] · DOI
  83. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Is it safe to walk here? Design and policy responses to women's fear of victimization in public places. Transp. Res. Board 2005, 2, 102-112.
  84. Ceccato, V.; Paz, Y. Crime in São Paulo's metro system: Sexual crimes against women. Crime Prev. Community Saf. 2017, 19, 211-226. [CrossRef] · DOI
  85. Kash, G. Always on the defensive: The effects of transit sexual assault on travel behavior and experience in Colombia and Bolivia. J. Transp. Health 2019, 13, 234-246. [CrossRef] · DOI
  86. Mackett, R.L. The health implications of inequalities in travel. J. Transp. Health 2014, 1, 202-209. [CrossRef] · DOI
  87. Malik, B.Z.; Rehman, Z.; Khan, A.H.; Akram, W. Women's mobility via bus rapid transit: Experiential patterns and challenges in Lahore. J. Transp. Health 2020, 17, 100834. [CrossRef] · DOI
  88. Orozco-Fontalvo, M.; Soto, J.; Arévalo, A.; Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. Women's perceived risk of sexual harassment in a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system: The case of Barranquilla, Colombia. J. Transp. Health 2019, 14, 100598. [CrossRef] · DOI
  89. Talavera-Garcia, R.; Soria-Lara, J.A. Q-PLOS, developing an alternative walking index. A method based on urban design quality. Cities 2015, 45, 7-17. [CrossRef] · DOI
  90. Grindlay, A.L.; Ochoa-Covarrubias, G.; Lizárraga, C. Urban Mobility and Quality of Public Spaces: The Case of Granada, Spain; Urban Transport XXVI; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2020; Volume 200, pp. 37-48.
  91. Ferrer, S.; Ruiz, T. The impact of the built environment on the decision to walk for short trips: Evidence from two Spanish cities. Transp. Policy 2018, 67, 111-120. [CrossRef] 100. Ayuntamiento de Granada. Plan de Movilidad Urbana Sostenible de Granada. 2013. Available online: http://www. movilidadgranada.com/pmus_index.php#descarga (accessed on 9 December 2021). 101. Canal UGR. La UGR Representa el 6.12% del PIB Granadino, y Genera el 7,7% del Empleo de la Provincia. 2020. Available online: https://canal.ugr.es/noticia/ugr-representa-612-pib-granadino-y-genera-77-empleo-provincia/ (accessed on 9 December 2021). 102. Universidad de Granada. Campus de la UGR. 2021. Available online: https://www.ugr.es/universidad/campus (accessed on 9 December 2021). 103. Institute for Economics & Peace. Global Peace Index 2019: Measuring Peace in a Complex World. Sydney. 2019. Available online: http://visionofhumanity.org/reports (accessed on 9 December 2021). 104. Ministerio del Interior. Balance de Criminalidad, 2019; Gobierno de España. Ministerio del Interior: Madrid, Spain, 2020. 105. Numbeo. Crime and Security indexes. 2021. Available online: https://es.numbeo.com/criminalidad (accessed on 9 December 2021). 106. Miralles-Guasch, C. Las encuestas de movilidad y los referentes ambientales de los transportes. EURE Santiago 2012, 38, 33-45. [CrossRef] 107. Ma, L.; Dill, J. Associations between the objective and perceived built environment and bicycling for transportation. J. Transp. Health 2015, 2, 248-255. [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lizárraga, C., Martín-Blanco, C., Castillo-Pérez, I., & Chica-Olmo, J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Granada (ES)
  • Department of Applied Economics, Campus Cartuja s/n, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
  • Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business, Campus Cartuja s/n, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
Corresponding author
Lizárraga, Carmen
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-02-07
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
1880
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su14031880
OpenAlex
W4210939937
Cited by
26
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7
FWCI
3.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
perceived security, fear of crime, walking, mode choice, university students, sustainable cities, urban safety, gender differences, built environment, Granada

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review