Towards Better Urban Mobility: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pedestrian Infrastructure in Naval, Biliran Province, Philippines

Background

Pedestrian infrastructure quality significantly influences urban mobility, particularly in developing regions undergoing rapid urbanization. This study assesses pedestrian infrastructure in Naval, Biliran Province, Philippines—a municipality transitioning towards cityhood—to address mobility challenges and inform sustainable development planning.

Methods

A mixed-methods approach was employed using a validated assessment framework with 17 criteria aligned with Philippine accessibility standards. Data collection involved systematic field observations covering 12.20 kilometers across 15 streets in downtown Naval and structured interviews with 211 pedestrians. Assessment combined physical measurements, photographic documentation, and statistical analysis of user perceptions.

Results

Field assessments revealed significant deficiencies, with 87% of sidewalks failing to meet minimum width standards (1.20 meters) and 80% exhibiting inadequate headroom clearance. Surface discontinuities were documented in 73% of segments, while 67% showed moderate to severe obstructions. Despite high utilization rates (82.9% of respondents regularly walking), only 34.0% reported positive experiences with sidewalk conditions. Statistical analysis identified significant correlations between infrastructure quality and pedestrian behavior, with safety concerns forcing pedestrians into vehicular pathways. Principal concerns included inadequate width (32.70% dissatisfaction), poor lighting (50.98%), and stray animals (66.67%).

Conclusion

This study establishes an evidence base highlighting the need for strategic interventions in Naval's pedestrian infrastructure. Findings underscore significant gaps between current provision and user requirements, particularly regarding dimensions, surface quality, and safety features. By identifying specific deficiencies, this research provides municipal authorities with actionable data to prioritize improvements that enhance walkability, safety, and overall urban mobility in Naval and similar developing urban contexts.

pedestrian infrastructure, walkability assessment, urban mobility, developing municipalities, Philippine urban planning, accessibility, sustainable transportation, public space quality

1. Adkins, A., Makarewicz, C., Scanze, M., Ingram, M., & Luhr, G. (2018). Contextualizing walkability: Do relationships between built environments and walking vary by socioeconomic context? Journal of American Planning Association, 83(3), 296-314. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Austroads. (2019). Guide to road design part 6A: Paths for walking and cycling. Austroads Ltd. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Axelson, P. W., Chesney, D. A., Galvan, D. V., Shah, J. B., Steger, K. A., & Vredenburgh, A. G. (1999). Designing sidewalks and trails for access. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73-80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bereitschaft, B. (2017). Equity in pedestrian transportation: A neighborhood-level analysis of automobile-oriented environments in suburban Chicago. Local Environment, 22(3), 356-373. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Boarnet, M. G., Day, K., Alfonzo, M., Forsyth, A., & Oakes, M. (2006). The Irvine-Minnesota inventory to measure built environments: Reliability tests. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(2), 153-159. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Brown, S. C., Lombard, J., Wang, K., Byrne, M. M., Toro, M., Plater-Zyberk, E., Feaster, D. J., Kardys, J., Nardi, M. I., Perez-Gomez, G., Pantin, H. M., & Szapocznik, J. (2016). Neighborhood greenness and chronic health conditions in Medicare beneficiaries. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(1), 572-579. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bullard, R. D. (1990). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Westview Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199-219. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cheng, L., Yang, J., & Zhou, Y. (2017). Climate-responsive pedestrian planning: A framework for tropical urban environments. Urban Planning, 9(2), 118-137. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Chu Li, P., Saha, M., Saugstad, M., Mankoff, J., & Froehlich, J. E. (2022). "I never realized sidewalks were a big deal": A case study of a community-driven sidewalk audit using Project Sidewalk. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Clifton, K. J., Livi Smith, A. D., & Rodriguez, D. (2007). The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1-2), 95-110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Clifton, K. J., Singleton, P. A., Muhs, C. D., & Schneider, R. J. (2016). Development of destination choice models for pedestrian travel. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 94, 255-265. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Cleto, R. C. (2017). Assessment of pedestrian facilities in main urban roads of Las Piñas City, Philippines. Civil Engineering Journal, 3(8), 555-571. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The principles of universal design. NC State University, The Center for Universal Design. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Damaceno, R. J. P., Leyden, K., Corley, C., Ferres, L., Saha, M., & Froehlich, J. E. (2023). SIDESEEING: A multimodal dataset and collection of tools for sidewalk assessment. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.06464 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Department of Public Works and Highways. (2012). Road safety design manual. Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Erraguntla, M., Delen, D., Agrawal, R. K., Madanagopal, K., & Mayer, R. (2017). Mobile-based sidewalk inventory app for smart communities, health, and safety. Suburban Sustainability, 5(1), 3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of American Planning Association, 76(3), 265-294. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65-84. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Fillone, A. M., & Mateo-Babiano, I. (2018). Do I walk or ride the rickshaw? Examining the factors affecting first- and last-mile trip options in the historic district of Manila, Philippines. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 11(1), 237-254. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Forsyth, A., & Southworth, M. (2008). Cities afoot—Pedestrians, walkability and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 13(1), 1-3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Gao, Y., Du, D., & Furuya, N. (2025). Micro-scale built environment and pedestrian behavior: A focus on sidewalks in commercial districts in Tokyo. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 14(2), 416-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2024.12.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Gebremariam, D., Kuhilen, T., Seboka, H., & Grum, B. (2023). Effect of sidewalk design and obstructions on pedestrian mobility: A case study of the main streets of Mekelle city, northern Ethiopia. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024, Article ID 5672280. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5672280 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Giles-Corti, B., Vernez-Moudon, A., Reis, R., Turrell, G., Dannenberg, A. L., Badland, H., Foster, S., Lowe, M., Sallis, J. F., Stevenson, M., & Owen, N. (2016). City planning and population health: A global challenge. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2912-2924. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Guillen, M. D., Ishida, H., & Okamoto, N. (2020). Is the use of streets with inadequate infrastructure safe for the vulnerable road users? Measurement of pedestrian behaviors in conflict-prone areas. IATSS Research, 44(1), 67-75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Hoehner, C. M., Ivy, A., Brennan Ramirez, L. K., Handy, S., & Brownson, R. C. (2007). Active neighborhood checklist: A user-friendly and reliable tool for assessing activity friendliness. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21(6), 534-537. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Karaos, A. M., & Porio, E. (2015). Transforming the housing process in the Philippines: The role of local-global networks for sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(10), 1728-1746. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Lee, S., Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (2021). Pedestrian walkability and neighborhood design: A citywide analysis of Chicago. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(3), 04021037. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Li, Y., Li, M., Xu, Y., & Tao, J. (2023). Visual landscape assessment and psychological restoration of pedestrian sidewalk space. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 13, Article 100382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2023.12.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Lopez, M. A., & Santos, J. (2023). Pedestrian mobility patterns in medium-sized Philippine cities: Implications for infrastructure planning. Transport Policy, 129, 93-111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mace, R. (1985). Universal design: Barrier-free environments for everyone. Designers West. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Messier, L. (2025). Complete streets meet fragmented policies: Sidewalks in 30 U.S. cities. Cities, 157, 105588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105588 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Moura, F., Cambra, P., & Gonçalves, A. B. (2017). Measuring walkability for distinct pedestrian groups with a participatory assessment method: A case study in Lisbon. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 282-296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Naghdizadegan Jahromi, M., Neysani Samany, N., Argany, M., & Mostafavi, M. A. (2025). Enhancing sidewalk accessibility assessment for wheelchair users: An adaptive weighting fuzzy-based approach. Heliyon, 11(1), e41101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2405-8440(24)17132-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2020). 2020 Census of population and housing. Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Regidor, J. R. F., & Javier, S. F. (2014). Walkability assessment of the road and public transportation network in the UP Diliman campus and its immediate environs. Philippine Engineering Journal, 35(1), 1-10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Republic of the Philippines. (1983). Accessibility Law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 344. An Act to enhance the mobility of disabled persons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Sangeeth, K., & Roy, U. K. (2025). Methodology for evaluating sidewalk based on continuous pedestrian movement on the sidewalk segment − A case study of Kochi city. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 31, 101393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2024.101393 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Shuttleworth, M. (2008). Descriptive research design. Explorable. https://explorable.com/descriptive-research-design [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the walkable city. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131(4), 246-257. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Stefanidis, R. M., & Bartzakas-Tsiompras, A. (2023). Pedestrian accessibility analysis of sidewalk-specific networks: Insights from three Latin American central squares. Sustainability, 16(21), 9294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219294 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Tolkan, A., et al. (2008). Central corridor pedestrian environment assessment tool. Central Corridor Design Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 (A/RES/70/1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Yu, X., Hoggenmüller, M., Tran, T. T. M., Wang, Y., & Tomitsch, M. (2023). Understanding the interaction between delivery robots and other road and sidewalk users: A study of user-generated online videos. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Yussif, A., Zayed, T., Taiwo, R., & Fares, A. (2023). Promoting sustainable urban mobility via automated sidewalk defect detection. Sustainable Development, 32(5), 5861-5881. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2999 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Predictive Health Monitoring Systems for Electric Vehicle Powertrains Using Edge AI and CAN Bus Data
• Internship Portals: A Systematic Review of Current Platforms and Future Directions
• An Affordable and Sustainable Efficient Color Sorting System Using Arduino and TCS3200 Sensor
• Financial Stress and Mobility Patterns: Implication for Transportation Policy Among Jeepney Passengers
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of Marketing Strategies on Customer Visit Intentions: Evidence from Local Restaurants in Boac, Marinduque