A street pedestrian traffic environment evaluation method based on analytic hierarchy process

Abstract

The present invention discloses a method for evaluating the pedestrian traffic environment of a street based on the analytic hierarchy process, including: combining the connotation of pedestrian friendliness and pedestrian traffic environment, forming pedestrian traffic environment evaluation criteria at different levels, setting evaluation indicators under evaluation criteria at each level, and constructing a pedestrian traffic environment evaluation system; designing the acquisition method of each evaluation indicator, acquiring the value of each evaluation indicator, and performing standardization on the acquired evaluation indicator value; using the analytic hierarchy process to determine the weight distribution of each evaluation indicator, multiplying the standardized evaluation indicator value with the corresponding weight and summing them to obtain the final evaluation result. The present invention analyzes the street pedestrian traffic environment through a multi-level evaluation indicator system, and provides a decision-making basis for the improvement and optimization of the traffic environment.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention relates to a street pedestrian traffic environment evaluation method based on a hierarchical analysis method, and belongs to the technical field of urban street pedestrian friendliness evaluation. Background Art

[0002] Streets are the places where pedestrian traffic occurs, and they have the dual attributes of transportation and daily public life. Therefore, they must adhere to the basic principles of safety, comfort and people-oriented.

[0003] There are two main types of research on street pedestrian traffic environment evaluation methods. One is based on the perception of travelers, obtaining residents' walking experience of the entire block through questionnaires; the other is to set a point with the largest flow of people as the "vitality center" and calculate the distance between different points of interest and the vitality center to make a pedestrian traffic environment evaluation. This method focuses on the entire block as the evaluation object, but there are few studies on evaluation methods for specific streets. The optimization and improvement strategies proposed by this method are too broad and difficult to implement at the specific street level.

[0004] In terms of evaluation methods, commonly used comprehensive evaluation methods include fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, data envelopment analysis method, hierarchical analysis method, etc. Among them, the hierarchical analysis method divides multiple factors in a complex system into multiple levels, and obtains the weight of each factor based on the mutual comparison between levels and between elements within the level, and finally obtains the evaluation result. This method combines quantitative analysis with qualitative analysis, and the multi-level analysis is consistent with the different levels of safety, comfort and other needs of travelers in actual walking. It can systematically analyze the walking-related factors at the street level and propose a new perspective and model for the evaluation of street pedestrian traffic environment. Summary of the invention

[0005] The technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to provide a street pedestrian traffic environment evaluation method based on the hierarchical analysis method, and to construct a street pedestrian traffic environment evaluation system in a hierarchical manner according to the influencing factors of the pedestrian traffic environment at the street level, so as to provide a decision-making basis for the improvement and optimization of the traffic environment.

[0006] The present invention adopts the following technical solutions to solve the above technical problems:

[0007] A street pedestrian traffic environment evaluation method based on hierarchical analysis method includes the following steps:

[0008] Step 1: Combine the connotations of pedestrian friendliness and pedestrian traffic environment to form pedestrian traffic environment evaluation criteria at different levels, set evaluation indicators under each level of evaluation criteria, and build a pedestrian traffic environment evaluation system;

[0009] Step 2, designing a method for obtaining each evaluation index, obtaining the value of each evaluation index, and standardizing the obtained evaluation index value;

[0010] Step 3: Use the hierarchical analysis method to determine the weight distribution of each evaluation index, multiply the standardized value of each evaluation index by its corresponding weight and sum them up to obtain the final evaluation result.

[0011] As a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the specific process of step 1 is as follows:

[0012] Combining the connotations of pedestrian friendliness and pedestrian traffic environment, pedestrian travel needs are divided into three levels of evaluation criteria from low to high: safety, comfort and pleasure. Among them, the safety evaluation criteria include five indicators: vehicle space width, non-motorized vehicle lane width, pedestrian lane width, pedestrian right of way, and vehicle-non-motorized vehicle separation form. The comfort evaluation criteria include six indicators: the degree of walking obstacles, the average spacing of street crossing facilities, the building setback distance, the flatness of the road pavement, the clarity of the sign system, and the average number of rest facilities. The pleasure evaluation criteria include three indicators: the degree of greening beauty, the degree of sanitation and cleanliness, and the degree of noise impact.

[0013] As a preferred solution of the present invention, the width of the vehicle space, the width of the non-motorized vehicle lane, the width of the pedestrian lane, the pedestrian right of way, the form of separation between vehicles and non-motorized vehicles, the average spacing between crossing facilities, the building setback distance and the average number of rest facilities are quantitative indicators, and the degree of walking obstacles, the flatness of the road pavement, the clarity of the sign system, the beauty of greening, the degree of sanitation and cleanliness, and the degree of noise impact are qualitative indicators.

[0014] As a preferred solution of the present invention, the method for obtaining each evaluation index in step 2 is designed to obtain the value of each evaluation index, which is specifically as follows:

[0015] For all qualitative indicators, street videos were recorded and video questionnaires were designed using the Likert scale method. Different values ​​were assigned to qualitative indicators according to the degree of satisfaction: very dissatisfied = 1, relatively dissatisfied = 2, average = 3, relatively satisfied = 4, and very satisfied = 5;

[0016] The quantitative indicators of vehicle space width, non-motorized vehicle lane width, pedestrian lane width, and building setback distance were obtained through field surveys and measurements;

[0017] The pedestrian right of way in the quantitative indicators is divided into three categories according to different forms of right of way: shared with motor vehicles, shared with non-motor vehicles and independent right of way, and the values ​​are assigned 1, 2 and 3 respectively;

[0018] For the machine-non-machine isolation forms in the quantitative indicators, they are divided into four categories according to different isolation forms: no isolation belt, line isolation, railing isolation and green belt isolation, and are assigned values ​​1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively;

[0019] For the average spacing of crossing facilities in the quantitative index A 22 , the calculation formula is as follows:

[0020]

[0021] Where, L represents the length of the street, in meters; n1 represents the number of crossing facilities on the street;

[0022] For the average number of recreational facilities in the quantitative indicator A 26 , the calculation formula is as follows:

[0023]

[0024] Where n2 represents the number of recreational facilities on the street.

[0025] As a preferred solution of the present invention, the obtained evaluation index values ​​are standardized in step 2, as follows:

[0026] The min-max normalization method is used to map the raw data of all indicators into the interval [0,1];

[0027] For the negative indicator vehicle space width, the following formula is used for processing:

[0028]

[0029] Except for the width of the vehicle space, the other indicators are all positive indicators. For positive indicators, the following formula is used for processing:

[0030]

[0031] In the formula, k i Represents the value of a certain indicator after standardization, x i Represents the original value of an indicator, x min and x max Respectively represent the minimum and maximum values ​​of the original values ​​of an indicator.

[0032] As a preferred solution of the present invention, the specific process of step 3 is as follows:

[0033] 3.1, obtain the relative importance of safety, comfort and pleasure, and use the consistent matrix method to construct the third-order judgment matrix A. According to the third-order judgment matrix A, multiple characteristic roots λ of the third-order judgment matrix A and the characteristic vector corresponding to each characteristic root are calculated, and the largest characteristic root λ is selected.max and the eigenvector W corresponding to the largest eigenvalue max , and for W max Normalize and get the relative weight vector Among them, w1, w2, and w3 are the relative weights of safety, comfort, and pleasure, respectively;

[0034] 3.2, for the five indicators in the security level, obtain the relative importance between the two indicators, and use the same method as 3.1 to construct the fifth-order judgment matrix A1, and obtain the relative weight vector Among them, w 11 、w 12 、w 13 、w 14 、w 15 They are the relative weights of vehicle space width, non-motorized vehicle lane width, pedestrian lane width, pedestrian right of way, and vehicle-non-motorized vehicle separation form;

[0035] For the six indicators in the comfort level, the relative importance between the two indicators is obtained, and the six-order judgment matrix A2 is constructed using the same method as 3.1, and the relative weight vector is obtained. Among them, w 21 、w 22 、w 23 、w 24 、w 25 、w 26 They are the relative weights of the degree of pedestrian obstruction, the average spacing of street crossing facilities, the building setback distance, the smoothness of the pavement, the clarity of the sign system, and the average number of recreational facilities;

[0036] For the three indicators in the pleasure level, the relative importance between the two indicators is obtained, and the third-order judgment matrix A3 is constructed using the same method as 3.1, and the relative weight vector is obtained. Among them, w 31 、w 32 、w 33 They are the relative weights of greening beauty, sanitation and cleanliness, and noise impact;

[0037] 3.3, respectively perform consistency checks on the third-order judgment matrix A, the fifth-order judgment matrix A1, the sixth-order judgment matrix A2 and the third-order judgment matrix A3. If all of the above four judgment matrices pass the consistency check, proceed to 3.4, otherwise return to 3.1 and rebuild the judgment matrix;

[0038] Among them, the consistency test process of the third-order judgment matrix A is as follows:

[0039] Calculate the consistency index CI:

[0040]

[0041] In the formula, n is the order of the judgment matrix;

[0042] Calculate the consistency ratio CR:

[0043]

[0044] In the formula, RI is the random consistency index, which is determined by the order n of the judgment matrix;

[0045] When the consistency ratio CR is less than 0.1, it means that the judgment matrix passes the consistency test;

[0046] The consistency test process of the fifth-order judgment matrix A1, the sixth-order judgment matrix A2, and the third-order judgment matrix A3 is the same as the consistency test process of the third-order judgment matrix A;

[0047] 3.4, calculate the absolute weight of each indicator in the three levels of safety, comfort and pleasure, that is, w ij 绝对 =w i × ij , where w i is the relative weight of safety, pleasure, and comfort, i is 1-3, w ij is the relative weight of each indicator at a certain level, w ij 绝对 is the absolute weight of each indicator at a certain level, j = 1,…,m, and the value corresponding to m is the number of specific indicators in this level;

[0048] The standardized value of each indicator is multiplied by its corresponding absolute weight, and all the multiplication results are summed up to obtain the evaluation score.

[0049] Compared with the prior art, the present invention adopts the above technical solution and has the following technical effects:

[0050] 1. Starting from the connotation of street pedestrian traffic environment, the present invention analyzes the factors that affect travelers' walking experience, and constructs a pedestrian traffic environment evaluation system based on the selection principle of scientific feasibility and the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. It also provides the acquisition and processing methods of indicators, determines the weight of each evaluation indicator through the hierarchical analysis method, and finally constructs a comprehensive evaluation model of the street pedestrian traffic environment.

[0051] 2. The street pedestrian traffic environment evaluation model proposed in this invention can evaluate all roads in a block, or focus on a certain street based on field visits and surveys. The street pedestrian traffic environment is analyzed through a multi-level evaluation index system, providing a decision-making basis for the improvement and optimization of the traffic environment. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0052] Figure 1 The present invention is a flowchart of a method for evaluating a street pedestrian traffic environment based on the analytic hierarchy process. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0053] The embodiments of the present invention are described in detail below, and examples of the embodiments are shown in the accompanying drawings. The embodiments described below with reference to the accompanying drawings are exemplary and are only used to explain the present invention, and cannot be interpreted as limiting the present invention.

[0054] like Figure 1 FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a method for evaluating a street pedestrian traffic environment based on the analytic hierarchy process of the present invention, comprising the following steps:

[0055] 1. Combined with the connotation of pedestrian traffic environment, different levels of pedestrian traffic environment evaluation criteria are formed. According to the principle of indicator selection, evaluation indicators under each level of evaluation criteria are set to build a pedestrian traffic environment evaluation system.

[0056] Pedestrian travel has different levels of needs, among which travel needs can be divided into three levels from low to high: safety, comfort, and pleasure.

[0057] In the hierarchical analysis of pedestrian traffic, safety is the lowest level demand. Since pedestrians are not the only subject of street use, a large number of motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles will jointly occupy the street space. Therefore, pedestrian traffic needs to consider factors such as whether the street has good conditions for separating motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles and sufficient sidewalk width; comfort takes into account that pedestrians will have direct contact with surrounding facilities and landscapes, so factors such as the flatness of the road surface and whether there is enough walking space will affect the comfort of pedestrians walking; pleasure is the highest level demand, which is used to characterize the high quality requirements of pedestrians for pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians are no longer satisfied with smooth and safe roads. Secondly, they are more looking forward to the pleasant experience brought by walking as a public lifestyle. Therefore, factors such as street greening and sanitary conditions need to be considered at this level.

[0058] The final constructed street pedestrian traffic environment evaluation index system includes three aspects: safety, comfort, and pleasure, including 14 qualitative and quantitative indicators. The specific composition of the evaluation index system is shown in Table 1.

[0059] Table 1 Pedestrian traffic environment evaluation index system

[0060]

[0061] 2. Design an indicator survey plan, obtain the values ​​of each indicator, and perform data processing on the indicators.

[0062] For qualitative indicators, we recorded street videos and designed video questionnaires using the Likert scale method, where qualitative indicators were assigned different values ​​according to the degree of satisfaction: very dissatisfied = 1, relatively dissatisfied = 2, average = 3, relatively satisfied = 4, and very satisfied = 5. For quantitative indicators, we carried professional equipment to conduct field surveys, measurements, and calculations.

[0063] In order to solve the problem that the indicators have different dimensions and directions, the min-max normalization method is used to make the values ​​of each indicator positively correlated with the evaluation results and map them into the interval [0,1]. The details are as follows:

[0064] (1) Width of vehicle space A 11

[0065] The passage of motor vehicles will affect the walking experience of pedestrians in many ways. When the traffic volume is large and the speed is high, pedestrians are prone to feel insecure, and it will also cause safety hazards for pedestrians crossing the street. It is generally believed that the wider the vehicle space, the faster the motor vehicle travels, and the narrower the width of the motor vehicle lane can limit the speed and reduce the walking distance required for pedestrians to cross the street. This indicator can be measured on the spot and the unit is m.

[0066] (2) Non-motorized vehicle lane width A 12

[0067] This indicator mainly reflects whether non-motor vehicles have encroached on the sidewalk. When the non-motor vehicle lane is too narrow, some non-motor vehicles will enter the sidewalk, thus posing a hazard to pedestrian safety. Generally speaking, the wider the non-motor vehicle lane is, the lower the possibility of non-motor vehicles encroaching on the sidewalk, and the better the pedestrian traffic environment of the street is. This indicator can be obtained through field measurement, and the unit is m.

[0068] (3) Walkway width A 13

[0069] This indicator is mainly used to measure the size of the space that residents have when walking. When the width of the sidewalk is sufficient, the density of pedestrians will be reduced, thereby obtaining more sufficient walking space and visual range, and reducing the occurrence of traffic safety accidents. Therefore, this indicator is a positive indicator. The larger the value, the better the pedestrian traffic environment. This indicator is obtained through field measurement and the unit is m.

[0070] (4) Pedestrian right of way A 14

[0071] This indicator is used to describe the sharing of pedestrian paths and other modes of transportation, reflecting whether residents have independent and safe walking spaces. It is generally believed that streets with independent pedestrian paths have better pedestrian traffic environments. This indicator does not have a specific direction, so it can be set as a positive indicator in the assignment method to facilitate subsequent data processing. This indicator is obtained through field surveys and is divided into three categories according to different road rights, and is assigned values ​​1-3 in turn.

[0072] A 14 ={Shared with motor vehicles, shared with non-motor vehicles, independent right of way}

[0073] (5) Non-isolated machine type A 15

[0074] Isolation belts are considered to be buffer zones between pedestrians and non-motor vehicles and motor vehicles. They can significantly enhance pedestrians' inner sense of security. At the same time, isolation belts can also reduce the damage caused by vehicle loss of control to a certain extent. The main forms of isolation between motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles include line isolation, railing isolation, and green belt isolation. This indicator also does not have a specific direction, so it is set as a positive indicator. This indicator is obtained through field surveys and is divided into four categories according to different isolation forms, with values ​​1-4 assigned in turn.

[0075] A 15 ={No isolation belt, line isolation, railing isolation, green belt isolation}

[0076] (6) Walking impairment level A 21

[0077] This indicator mainly describes whether there are illegal parking of non-motor vehicles and small vendors occupying the sidewalk, reflecting whether pedestrians can walk unimpeded on the sidewalk. This indicator is difficult to quantify, and is obtained through a video questionnaire survey. It counts whether the respondents are satisfied with the degree of pedestrian obstacles on the street, and assigns a value of 1-5 according to five levels.

[0078] A 21 ={very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, average, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied}

[0079] (7) Average spacing of crossing facilities A 22

[0080] This indicator can characterize the convenience of pedestrians crossing the street. When the density of crossing facilities is kept high, the connectivity of the entire street network will be improved, and pedestrians will have more path choices, so they can plan their routes reasonably and shorten their travel time. When the road lacks sufficient crossing facilities, pedestrians may take illegal actions such as crossing the road, so this indicator is usually considered to be a positive indicator. This indicator can be obtained through field surveys and calculations.

[0081]

[0082] In the formula, L represents the length of the street in meters, and n1 represents the number of crossing facilities on the street, including all kinds of crossing facilities such as zebra crossings and overpasses.

[0083] (8) Building setback distance A 23

[0084] This indicator reflects the size of pedestrian walking space. When the building setback distance is large, pedestrians can have a more comfortable walking experience and field of vision. At the same time, it also reduces the sense of oppression brought by compact buildings, allowing pedestrians to enjoy walking as a public life. It is a positive indicator. This indicator is obtained through actual measurement and the unit is m.

[0085] (9) Pavement smoothness A 24

[0086] Uneven pavement may completely render the pedestrian path ineffective, while an even pavement can ensure the basic needs of pedestrians for safe and convenient walking, and can be set as a positive indicator through assignment. This indicator is difficult to quantify, and is obtained through a video questionnaire survey, and is qualitatively graded and assigned values ​​of 1-5.

[0087] A 24 ={very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, average, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied}

[0088] (10) Marking system clarity A 25

[0089] A clear sign system can facilitate pedestrians to reach their respective destinations and plan their travel routes, which indicates whether the street's guidance function is complete. At the same time, traffic markings will also guide the parking of motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles. This indicator can be determined as a positive indicator through artificial setting of the value assignment method, and obtained through video questionnaire surveys, and the grades are assigned 1-5 in sequence.

[0090] A 25 ={very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, average, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied}

[0091] (11) Average number of recreational facilities A 26

[0092] Rest facilities can provide pedestrians with necessary resting places to restore their physical strength or enjoy the streetscape, reflecting the pedestrian-friendly degree of the street. At the same time, rest facilities can expand the scope of pedestrian traffic to a certain extent, thereby improving the utilization rate of pedestrian traffic and improving the pedestrian walking experience. This indicator is obtained through field surveys and calculations.

[0093]

[0094] In the formula, L represents the length of the street, in meters, and n2 represents the number of recreational facilities on the street.

[0095] (12) Greening beauty level A 31

[0096] Green plants can serve as isolation belts to protect pedestrians’ walking space, absorb noise, improve the urban environment, and enhance pedestrians’ walking experience. This indicator is difficult to quantify and is obtained through video questionnaire surveys. The grades are assigned 1-5.

[0097] A 31 ={very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, average, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied}

[0098] (13) Hygiene and cleanliness level A 32

[0099] This indicator is used to describe the cleanliness of the sidewalk and can represent whether pedestrians have a good living experience when walking on the street. This indicator is difficult to quantify and is obtained through a video questionnaire survey. The grades are assigned 1-5.

[0100] A 32 ={very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, average, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied}

[0101] (14) Noise impact level A 33

[0102] This index reflects the satisfaction of pedestrians with the street atmosphere. Since different pedestrians have different tolerance to noise, this index is difficult to quantify by measuring decibels. The present invention obtains qualitative indicators through video questionnaires and assigns them in grades of 1-5.

[0103] A 33 ={very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, average, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied}

[0104] The pedestrian traffic environment evaluation system constructed by the present invention includes multiple types of indicators with different dimensions and directions. The larger the value of the positive indicator, the better the pedestrian traffic environment of the street, and the larger the value of the negative indicator, the worse the pedestrian traffic environment of the street. At the same time, the different ranges of values ​​will lead to deviations in the evaluation results, so the min-max normalization method is used to map the original data of all indicators into the [0,1] interval.

[0105] For positive indicators, the following formula is used for correction:

[0106]

[0107] For negative indicators, the following formula is used for correction:

[0108]

[0109] In the formula, k i Indicates the corrected indicator value, x i Represents the original value of an indicator, x min and x max Indicates the minimum and maximum values ​​of the original value of an indicator.

[0110] Through the standardization method, the data of the 14 indicators can be converted into the same direction and dimensionless form, and the numerical vector K = {k1, k2…k 14}.

[0111] 3. Establish a street pedestrian traffic environment evaluation model. The main process is divided into multiple steps, including designing a weighted scale questionnaire and obtaining scale data, consistency testing of hierarchical total ranking and hierarchical single ranking, determining the weights of evaluation indicators, etc. Finally, the evaluation results are obtained through weighted multiplication, and the evaluation indicators are converted into evaluation values.

[0112] After constructing the traffic environment evaluation index system, it is necessary to apply the hierarchical analysis method to determine the weight distribution of each evaluation index. This process is divided into the construction of the judgment matrix, consistency test, and model result output.

[0113] (1) Constructing a judgment matrix

[0114] The present invention uses the consistent matrix method to construct the judgment matrix. This method does not compare all indicators together, but obtains the relative importance by comparing any two indicators. This method requires inviting multiple experts in related fields to first score the relative importance of safety, comfort, and pleasure, and then score the relative importance of specific indicators in each category, as shown in Table 2.

[0115] Table 2 Relative importance scoring scale

[0116] Data Scaling meaning 1 Factor i is as important as factor j. 2 Between 1 and 3 3 Factor i is slightly more important than factor j. 4 Between 3 and 5 5 Factor i is more important than factor j. 6 Between 5 and 7 7 Factor i is strongly important compared to factor j 8 Between 7 and 9 9 Factor i is extremely important compared to factor j. 1 / 2 Between 1 and 1 / 3 1 / 3 Factor i is slightly more important than factor j. 1 / 4 Between 1 / 3 and 1 / 5 1 / 5 Compared with factor i, factor j is more important. 1 / 6 Between 1 / 5 and 1 / 7 1 / 7 Factor i is more important than factor j. 1 / 8 Between 1 / 7 and 1 / 9 1 / 9 Compared with factor i, factor j is extremely important.

[0117] Scale the data as a ij By writing into the matrix, a judgment matrix can be obtained, as shown in Table 3. Taking the comparison of safety, comfort and pleasure as an example, the judgment matrix A can be constructed.

[0118] Table 3 Scoring scale examples

[0119] Security Comfort Pleasantness Security <![CDATA[a 11 ]]> <![CDATA[a 12 ]]> <![CDATA[a 13 ]]> Comfort <![CDATA[a 21 ]]> <![CDATA[a 22 ]]> <![CDATA[a 23 ]]> Pleasantness <![CDATA[a 31 ]]> <![CDATA[a 32 ]]> <![CDATA[a 33 ]]>

[0120] By solving the following formula, we can obtain multiple characteristic roots λ of the judgment matrix A and the characteristic matrix W corresponding to each characteristic root.

[0121] AW=λW

[0122] Select the largest eigenvalue λ max and the vector W corresponding to the largest eigenvalue max ={w m1 ,w m2 ,w m3}, and for W max Normalization is performed as shown below:

[0123]

[0124] The weight vector can be obtained Among them, w1, w2, and w3 are the weights of safety, comfort, and pleasure, respectively.

[0125] By repeating the above steps for specific indicators at the three levels of safety, comfort, and pleasure, we can obtain the corresponding weights of each indicator at the three levels.

[0126] Since there are five indicators in the security hierarchy, it corresponds to a five-order judgment matrix, and the weight vector obtained is

[0127] There are six indicators in the comfort level, which correspond to the sixth-order judgment matrix, and the weight vector obtained is

[0128] Three indicators are set in the pleasure level, which corresponds to the sixth-order judgment matrix, and the weight vector

[0129] (2)Consistency test

[0130] When there are many indicators, experts may make errors in the scoring scale due to subjective factors. In this case, it is necessary to conduct a consistency test on the scoring scale, that is, to ensure that: when factor i is more important than factor j, and factor j is more important than factor k, factor i is also more important than factor k. First, it is necessary to conduct a consistency test on the third-order judgment matrix composed of safety, comfort, and pleasure.

[0131]

[0132] In the above formula, CI is the consistency index, which is used as an intermediate index in subsequent calculations, λmax is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, and n is the order of the judgment matrix.

[0133]

[0134] In the above formula, CR is the consistency ratio. When the value is less than 0.1, it indicates that the judgment matrix has passed the consistency test and its weight distribution is reasonable. RI is the random consistency index, which is determined by the order n of the judgment matrix, as shown in Table 4.

[0135] Table 4

[0136] Judgment matrix order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45

[0137] After the judgment matrix constructed by safety, comfort and pleasure passes the consistency test, it is necessary to conduct consistency tests on the fifth-order matrix composed of five indicators in safety, the sixth-order matrix composed of six indicators in comfort, and the third-order matrix composed of pleasure respectively. The calculation process is the same.

[0138] (3) Result output

[0139] The weight feature vector obtained from the previous step are the weights of each specific indicator corresponding to safety, comfort and pleasure, Safety, comfort and pleasure are the weights corresponding to the entire evaluation model. Therefore, the absolute weight vector of each indicator corresponding to the evaluation model needs to be calculated by the following formula.

[0140] W 绝对 ={w i × i1 ,w i × i2 …w i × im}

[0141] In the formula, w i is the relative weight of safety, pleasure, and comfort, i is 1-3, w ij is the relative weight of each indicator at a certain level, j = 1,…,m, and the value corresponding to m is the number of specific indicators in this level.

[0142] Finally, the numerical vector K of each indicator is multiplied by the corresponding weight to obtain the evaluation score P.

[0143] P=K·W 绝对 T

[0144] The above embodiments are only for illustrating the technical idea of ​​the present invention, and cannot be used to limit the protection scope of the present invention. Any changes made on the basis of the technical solution in accordance with the technical idea proposed by the present invention shall fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A street pedestrian traffic environment evaluation method based on hierarchical analysis method, characterized in that: The steps include: Step 1: Combine the connotations of pedestrian friendliness and pedestrian traffic environment to form pedestrian traffic environment evaluation criteria at different levels, set evaluation indicators under each level of evaluation criteria, and build a pedestrian traffic environment evaluation system; The specific process is as follows: Combining the connotation of pedestrian friendliness and pedestrian traffic environment, pedestrian travel needs are divided into three levels of evaluation criteria from low to high: safety, comfort and pleasure. Among them, the safety evaluation criteria include five indicators: vehicle space width, non-motorized vehicle lane width, pedestrian lane width, pedestrian right of way, and vehicle-non-motorized vehicle separation form. The comfort evaluation criteria include six indicators: walking obstacle degree, average spacing of street crossing facilities, building setback distance, road pavement flatness, sign system clarity, and average number of rest facilities. The pleasure evaluation criteria include three indicators: greening beauty, sanitation and cleanliness, and noise impact. Among them, the width of the vehicle space, the width of the non-motorized vehicle lane, the width of the pedestrian lane, the pedestrian right of way, the form of separation between vehicles and non-motorized vehicles, the average spacing of street crossing facilities, the building setback distance and the average number of recreational facilities are quantitative indicators, and the degree of pedestrian obstacles, the flatness of the pavement, the clarity of the sign system, the beauty of greening, the degree of sanitation and cleanliness, and the degree of noise impact are qualitative indicators; Step 2, designing a method for obtaining each evaluation index, obtaining the value of each evaluation index, and standardizing the obtained evaluation index value; The method for obtaining each evaluation index is designed to obtain the value of each evaluation index, as follows: For all qualitative indicators, street videos were recorded and video questionnaires were designed using the Likert scale method. Different values ​​were assigned to qualitative indicators according to the degree of satisfaction: very dissatisfied = 1, relatively dissatisfied = 2, average = 3, relatively satisfied = 4, and very satisfied = 5; The quantitative indicators of vehicle space width, non-motorized vehicle lane width, pedestrian lane width, and building setback distance were obtained through field surveys and measurements; The pedestrian right of way in the quantitative indicators is divided into three categories according to different forms of right of way: shared with motor vehicles, shared with non-motor vehicles and independent right of way, and the values ​​are assigned 1, 2 and 3 respectively; For the machine-non-machine isolation forms in the quantitative indicators, they are divided into four categories according to different isolation forms: no isolation belt, line isolation, railing isolation and green belt isolation, and are assigned values ​​1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively; For the average spacing of crossing facilities in the quantitative index A 22 , the calculation formula is as follows: Where, L represents the length of the street, in meters; n1 represents the number of crossing facilities on the street; For the average number of recreational facilities in the quantitative indicator A 26 , the calculation formula is as follows: In the formula, n2 represents the number of recreational facilities on the street; Step 3: Use the hierarchical analysis method to determine the weight distribution of each evaluation index, multiply the standardized value of each evaluation index by its corresponding weight and sum them up to obtain the final evaluation result; the specific process is as follows: 3.1, obtain the relative importance of safety, comfort and pleasure, and use the consistent matrix method to construct the third-order judgment matrix A. According to the third-order judgment matrix A, multiple characteristic roots λ of the third-order judgment matrix A and the characteristic vector corresponding to each characteristic root are calculated, and the largest characteristic root λ is selected. max and the eigenvector W corresponding to the largest eigenvalue max , and for W max Normalize and get the relative weight vector Among them, w1, w2, and w3 are the relative weights of safety, comfort, and pleasure, respectively; 3.2, for the five indicators in the security level, obtain the relative importance between the two indicators, and use the same method as 3.1 to construct the fifth-order judgment matrix A1, and obtain the relative weight vector Among them, w 11 、w 12 、w 13 、w 14 、w 15 They are the relative weights of vehicle space width, non-motorized vehicle lane width, pedestrian lane width, pedestrian right of way, and vehicle-non-motorized vehicle separation form; For the six indicators in the comfort level, the relative importance between the two indicators is obtained, and the six-order judgment matrix A2 is constructed using the same method as 3.1, and the relative weight vector is obtained. Among them, w 21 、w 22 、w 23 、w 24 、w 25 、w 26 They are the relative weights of the degree of pedestrian obstruction, the average spacing of street crossing facilities, the building setback distance, the smoothness of the pavement, the clarity of the sign system, and the average number of recreational facilities; For the three indicators in the pleasure level, the relative importance between the two indicators is obtained, and the third-order judgment matrix A3 is constructed using the same method as 3.1, and the relative weight vector is obtained. Among them, w 31 、w 32 、w 33 They are the relative weights of greening beauty, sanitation and cleanliness, and noise impact; 3.3, respectively perform consistency checks on the third-order judgment matrix A, the fifth-order judgment matrix A1, the sixth-order judgment matrix A2 and the third-order judgment matrix A3. If all of the above four judgment matrices pass the consistency check, proceed to 3.4, otherwise return to 3.1 and rebuild the judgment matrix; Among them, the consistency test process of the third-order judgment matrix A is as follows: Calculate the consistency index CI: In the formula, n is the order of the judgment matrix; Calculate the consistency ratio CR: In the formula, RI is the random consistency index, which is determined by the order n of the judgment matrix; When the consistency ratio CR is less than 0.1, it means that the judgment matrix passes the consistency test; The consistency test process of the fifth-order judgment matrix A1, the sixth-order judgment matrix A2, and the third-order judgment matrix A3 is the same as the consistency test process of the third-order judgment matrix A; 3.4, calculate the absolute weight of each indicator in the three levels of safety, comfort and pleasure, that is, w ij 绝对 =w i × ij , where w i is the relative weight of safety, pleasure, and comfort, i is 1-3, w ij is the relative weight of each indicator at a certain level, w ij 绝对 is the absolute weight of each indicator at a certain level, j = 1, ..., m, and the value corresponding to m is the number of specific indicators in this level; The standardized value of each indicator is multiplied by its corresponding absolute weight, and all the multiplication results are summed up to obtain the evaluation score.

2. The method for evaluating street pedestrian traffic environment based on analytic hierarchy process according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The obtained evaluation index values ​​are standardized as described in step 2, as follows: The min-max normalization method is used to map the raw data of all indicators into the interval [0, 1]; For the negative indicator vehicle space width, the following formula is used for processing: Except for the width of the vehicle space, the other indicators are all positive indicators. For positive indicators, the following formula is used for processing: In the formula, k i Represents the value of a certain indicator after standardization, x i Represents the original value of an indicator, x min and x max Respectively represent the minimum and maximum values ​​of the original values ​​of an indicator.

Images