This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Oviedo Trespalacios, Oscar & Scott-Parker, Bridie(2017)Footbridge usage in high-traffic flow highways: The intersection of safetyand security in pedestrian decision-making?Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 49, pp.177-187.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/108161/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No DerivativeWorks 2.5

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.06.010

1

Title Footbridge usage in high-traffic flow highways: Does a Colombian case study demonstrate the failure of positive attitudes toward safety? Authors Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios1,2,3,4, & Bridie Scott-Parker 4,5,6,7

Affiliation 1 Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q), Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI), Queensland, Australia

2 Faculty of Health, School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Australia

3 Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad del Norte, Colombia

4 Consortium of Adolescent Road Safety (CADROSA.org), Australia 5 Adolescent Risk Research Unit (ARRU), Sunshine Coast Mind and Neuroscience - Thompson Institute, University of the Sunshine Coast (USC), Australia

6 Sustainability Research Centre (SRC), Faculty of Arts, Business and Law, University of the Sunshine Coast (USC), Australia

7 School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Business and Law, University of the Sunshine Coast (USC), Australia

Corresponding Author Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q) Queensland University of Technology Queensland, Australia, 4059 Tel: +61 7 3138 4967 Fax: + 61 7 3138 0111 Email: ooviedot@gmail.com, oscar.oviedotrespalacios@qut.edu.co

To cite this article: Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios & Bridie Scott-Parker (2017): Footbridge usage in high-traffic flow highways: Does a Colombian case study demonstrate the failure of positive attitudes toward safety?, Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.06.010

To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.06.010

2

Abstract In the Decade of Action for Road Safety, the vulnerability of pedestrians to severe outcomes from road crash is well-recognised. This study explored the factors that are influential in pedestrians’ decisions to cross a high-traffic highway in Barranquilla, Colombia, by using a footbridge over the highway, or by cutting across the highway in close proximity to a footbridge. Participants were recruited at each crossing (n = 105 footbridge, n = 105 ground; n = 117 males; M(SD) age = 23.28(5.98) years) and completed a paper survey exploring demographics, highway crossing behaviour, and attitudes regarding the safety of the crossing. Despite the majority of participants reporting the ground crossing was dangerous, and that the footbridge crossing was safe, one third of participants never or rarely (approximately 0% and 25% of the time) used the footbridge to cross the highway. Logistic regression revealed that the decision regarding the highway crossing mode (footbridge or ground) was predicted by (a) the frequency in which the footbridge is crossed, (b) the perception of footbridge security in relation to crime, (c) the perception of footbridge safety about traffic conflicts in general, (d) the proximity of the footbridge to the highway ground crossing, and (e) if the subject had experienced an injury during a previous highway crossing. The findings extend our understanding of pedestrian behaviour in crossing highways, not only in relation to the use of footbridges which separate both road user groups, but also ground crossings which place the pedestrians at significant risk especially those in areas with high traffic flow density. Moreover, the findings highlight the complexity involved in improving pedestrian road safety, particularly as the provision of an engineering solution (a footbridge) in close proximity to a high-risk zone (highway) is clearly not the only solution in the much larger road safety system. Keywords: Footbridges; pedestrian; crossing; security; vulnerable road users; human-infrastructure integration

3

Highlights · Explored pedestrian highway crossing behaviour via footbridge and ground

· Majority reported ground crossing was dangerous, but one third never or rarely used footbridge

· While perceived security increases safe crossing, positive safety attitudes reduces safe crossing.

· The engineering solution of the nearby footbridge was an insufficient intervention for pedestrians

4

1. Introduction

Road trauma and injury are among the greatest public health challenges of this generation. Although many efforts during the Decade of Action for Road Safety have saved a significant number of lives worldwide, there is still limited evidence of decline in the global annual number of deaths (WHO, 2015, Cantillo et al., 2015). In addition, the number of traffic-related injuries has tended to remain stable or even increased in some nations: middle- and low-income countries having the highest rates of fatalities worldwide, in which vulnerable road users represent the largest group. This gap appears to be a consequence of the traffic composition in these less-motorised environments, where an increased proportion of vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrians and 2-wheeler riders) are typically predictors of traffic fatalities (Oviedo-Trespalacios and Haworth, 2015).

Pedestrians, as the largest vulnerable road users in the road network, are generally overrepresented in road fatality statistics. To illustrate, pedestrians account for 30% of fatalities in the African Region, and 22% of fatalities in the Americas and around the world in general (WHO, 2015). A recent US study revealed that while fatalities from road crashes have decreased, the proportion of pedestrian fatalities has steadily increased 11%-14% over the past decade (Lee et al., 2015). Unfortunately, pedestrian safety has not been a priority in most developing countries (Damsere-Derry et al., 2010), and therefore there is a dearth of information regarding the current road safety system and how it impacts on pedestrians, and the factors that influence pedestrian behaviour. Notwithstanding this, it is expected that with the increasing rates of urbanisation in developing countries there will be a corresponding increase in the number of pedestrians injured, evidenced in epidemiological studies that have shown a relationship between pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions and population density (Cottrill and Thakuriah, 2010). More importantly, pedestrians are highly vulnerable in safety-critical situations; for example Prijon and Ermenc (2009) found that while a relatively small proportion of pedestrians were involved in road crashes (2%), pedestrians have the highest mortality rate of all road groups (13%).

The main determinant of injury severity in pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes is the vehicle speed. In the road transport system the decision-making processes for setting speed limits are not only based on safety outcomes but consider also the efficiency of the transport infrastructure. Hence, reductions of speed limits to meet pedestrian-safe thresholds are not always possible, and if so, could be ineffective in regions where there is low or unsuccessful speeding enforcement. In the case of high traffic flow highways, with speed limits set at 80 kilometres per hour (kph) or more, the risk of pedestrian death as a result of collision approximates 60% (WHO, 2015). In addition, highly dense commercial regions provide further opportunities for pedestrians to be exposed to traffic risks, with threats to safe pedestrian mobility arising from sharing the road between pedestrians and vehicles particularly when the road context assigns low priority to pedestrians (Retting et al., 2003). In high risk contexts, there are expectations that pedestrians will assume a protective – and, thus, safe – behaviour. Specifically, previous research has highlighted that the level of perceived risk has an impact on the different attitudes toward safety, and with respect to intentions of risky crossing in particular. That is, pedestrians who perceive more risk have more adverse attitudes towards unsafe crossing behaviour and therefore report being able to

5

refrain from such risky road crossings (Holland and Hill, 2007). As consequence, high traffic flow highways in commercial areas with high speed limits are contexts were it is expected that pedestrians will prioritise safe crossing behaviour.

Footbridges or pedestrian overpasses (see Figure 1a) are located above (and on occasion below) roads in order to eliminate high pedestrian flow on the ground (Sinclair and Zuidgeest, 2015) and to eliminate pedestrian-vehicle conflicts through the physical separation of road user groups. The provision of such infrastructure does not mean that pedestrians actually use this infrastructure and therefore all conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles will be prevented, however. Rather, pedestrian behaviours have been identified as the most frequent causes of road crash death (Forero et al., 2012), with numerous studies using a range of methodologies around the world demonstrating that a considerable proportion of pedestrians do not use, or inappropriately and/or illegally use infrastructure designed to increase pedestrian safety on the road and near trains such as footbridges and overpasses. To illustrate, 25% of a sample in Australia reported violating train crossing rules in a survey-based study (Freeman and Rakotonirainy, 2015), 20% reporting high exposure of crossing the road while distracted (Lennon et al., 2017), 77% were observed to cross a road in risky places in a video-based study in Colombia (Morales-Quintero et al., 2012), 32% of pedestrians violated the red light at intersections in an observational study in France (Dommes et al., 2015), and 46% of pedestrians did not use overpasses to cross the road in a video-based study in Turkey (Demiroz et al., 2015). Moreover, the high prevalence of aberrant crossing behaviours is problematic itself, as not only can simply the presence of other pedestrians diminish the vigilance and potential compensatory strategies of pedestrians (e.g., reduced vigilance and scanning, see (Nordfjærn and Şimşekoğlu, 2013, Yagil, 2000), but consistent with social learning theory, observed risky behaviours that do not have a negative outcome and/or have a positive outcome, and behaviours that are rewarded (either through a positive outcome or through the lack of a negative outcome) are likely to be repeated (e.g., see Scott-Parker et al. (2009); Scott-Parker et al. (2012)). Moreover, the existence of the safety infrastructure could potentially modify the behaviour of drivers who will reduce vigilance due to expectation of a safe behaviour.

The design of countermeasure and interventions for increasing the usage of infrastructure interventions such as those depicted in Figure 1 (herein referred to as footbridges) which physically separate pedestrians from vehicles requires fundamental information regarding the factors influencing the decision of crossing or not via the footbridge. There is a short body of research discussing predictors of footbridge crossing, and the results are often contradictory. While it is expected that increased risk associated with crossing through traffic will positively influence decision making processes to use the footbridge, empirical data show otherwise (Mutto et al., 2002). Additionally, the factors underlying the behaviour of pedestrians has been a considerable gap in the literature for many developing countries and, overall, there is little scholarly literature regarding pedestrian crossing in particular risky situations, such as high traffic flow highways (Sinclair and Zuidgeest, 2015). Therefore the objective of this paper is to examine factors affecting the decision making process of pedestrians regarding the use, or not, of a footbridge in a high traffic flow highway in Colombia, where young pedestrians remain overrepresented on road fatalities (WHO, 2015).

6

1a. Footbridge over the highway

1b. Pedestrians crossing the highway within 30 metres of the footbridge shown in 1a.

Figure 1. The footbridge over the highway, and pedestrians crossing the highway via

the ground, in Barranquilla, Colombia (Photographs supplied by the authors)

2. Methods

Case study context The site in Barranquilla, Colombia, features the “Avenida Alberto Assa” westward bound highway (towards suburbia) which is surrounded by commercial venues such as restaurants and stores and a major Colombian university (see Figure 2). The socio-economic characteristics of the area generate a constant and high flow of mixed age pedestrians. This area is of particular interest given the regular exposure of pedestrians to highway traffic, with

7

statistics provided by the university during the period September 2013 to October 2013 revealing that only 18% of people leaving the university used the footbridge (Bienestar Universitario, 2013).

Figure 2. Location of pedestrian footbridge over “Avenida Alberto Assa” highway

(Adapted from Google Maps, 11.017293, -74.851014) In order to stop the unsafe flow of pedestrians into vehicular traffic, barriers were provided in previous occasions (March 2014 and February 2015). However, design and road functionality prevented the implementation of hard structures across the entire road segment and resulted in the implementation of soft fences (made of wire) and/or vegetation (as shown in Figure 1b) that were rapidly vandalised after introduction. The particular constraints upon a permanent barrier in this high-traffic high-pedestrian location, combined with a lack of legislation and enforcement of legislation relating to pedestrian jaywalking in Colombia and the relatively low use of the footbridge, means that effective intervention requires more than simply providing an engineering solution. Rather, a qualitative exploration of factors influencing road crossing behaviour, and footbridge use in particular, are essential. Participants A convenience sample of 210 pedestrians was intercepted in two locations around the pedestrian footbridge; such that 105 participants had been observed to cross the highway via the footbridge, and 105 participants had been observed to cross the highway via the ground (117 males, 55.7%). There were no significant road crossing-mode differences by gender (Pearson's chi-square=0.174, df=1, p = 0.677). Participant age was M= 23.28 (S.D. = 5.98) years, consistent with the population visiting this region on a daily basis and as can be observed in Figure 1b. Perhaps unsurprising given the proximity to the university, 34.8% of participants were students, 30.2% were part-time workers, 24.3% were employed full-time, 10% were employed casually or unemployed, and the remainder (0.7%) reported they were a housewife. Nearly one quarter of participants (23.3%) reported a high socioeconomic status

8

(SES, household income >US$700/month), 48.1% reported a moderate SES (household income US$200–$700/month), and 28.5% reported a low SES (household income <US$200 per month), according to the social strata established by the Department of National Planning of Colombia. Procedure and instruments Research officers collected data by approaching participants who were observed to safely cross the road via the footbridge or the ground. The acceptance rate of the intercept interviews was approximately 1 in 7 pedestrians for both crossing modes. The survey was completed via an interview which required 5 minutes to complete, given that pedestrians were typically waiting for public transport or were eager to leave the location. Data was collected during a period of one week between 6:30am and 9:30pm. Four research officers intercepted pedestrians travelling to or from the university, using the roadway or the footbridge. In addition to sociodemographic data (as noted above), the survey explored road crossing behaviour (e.g., frequency, mode), perceived risks (e.g., of using the footbridge, highway traffic, observed and own pedestrian-vehicle conflicts) and perceptions regarding the footbridge (e.g., distance, time lost walking to/from footbridge), with behaviour and perception responses on Likert scales (e.g., 0% never- 100% always, 1 very dangerous-5 very safe; 1 daily-6 never). The adverbs of frequency had percentages attached to each alternative in an attempt to quantify the responses: "always" (100%), "often" (approximately 75%), "sometimes" (approximately 50%). "rarely" (approximately 25%), and "never" (0%). This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of each of the investigative sites' institutional review boards and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Analysis Response frequencies were calculated for each crossing mode (footbridge crossing or highway crossing), with differences in risk and perception measures examined via t-tests for independent samples for the two crossing modes. Alpha was set at p<.05. Predictors of crossing mode were identified through a logistic regression model fitted through a backward step-wise method with Wald statistic at a p<.05 level of significance. Step by step, this method evaluates the value of the coefficients and their significance, removing variables that are not statistically significant until the best possible model is fitted. The goodness of fit of the regression models was verified using the method proposed by Agresti (2013), which considers comparisons of groups of observed and fitted values through X2 and G2 statistics.

3. Results

Crossing behaviour, risk perceptions, and footbridge perceptions Table 1 summarises the crossing behaviour, the risk perceptions, and the footbridge perceptions for each group of participants. As can be seen, in general the majority of participants crossed the highway daily or weekly, and most participants perceived the traffic in the area as dangerous or very dangerous, that crossing the highway in an area other than the footbridge was dangerous or very dangerous, and that the footbridge is a safe or very safe

9

way of crossing the highway. A larger proportion of participants who were observed to use the footbridge reported that the footbridge required less than 3 minutes to cross the highway, and while approximately half of the participants stated that the footbridge was in good or excellent condition, a quarter of participants stated that the footbridge was in bad or very bad condition and a majority of participants rated the condition of the footbridge’s access as bad or very bad. Interestingly a much larger proportion of participants who were not observed using the footbridge reported that the lighting of the footbridge for use at night was adequate or very adequate with almost 3 in 10 participants stating that the footbridge illumination is inadequate or very inadequate. Table 1. Frequency (n, proportion) of crossing behaviour, risk and footbridge perceptions, by

participant crossing mode (ground, footbridge)

Participants who did not cross via footbridge Participants who crossed via footbridge

Frequency of highway crossing

Daily/weekly

Less than once week/ couple times month

1 time a month/never

Daily/weekly

Less than once week/ couple times month

1 time a month/never

79 75% 18 17% 8 8%

75 71% 21 20% 9 9%

Frequency of footbridge usage Always/often Sometimes Never/rarely

Always/often Sometimes Never/rarely

23 22% 17 16% 65 62%

73 71% 20 19% 10 10%

Perceived safety† of using the footbridge

Very dangerous/ dangerous

Neither dangerous or safe

Very safe/safe

Very dangerous/ dangerous

Neither dangerous or safe

Very safe/safe

13 12% 30 29% 62 59%

18 17% 13 12% 74 70%

Perceived safety† of crossing highway in an area other than the footbridge

Very dangerous/ dangerous

Neither dangerous or safe

Very safe/safe

Very dangerous/ dangerous

Neither dangerous or safe

Very safe/safe

52 50% 32 30% 21 20%

69 66% 16 15% 20 19%

Perceived security± of the footbridge

Very dangerous/ dangerous

Neither dangerous or secure

Very secure / secure

Very dangerous/ dangerous

Neither dangerous or secure

Very secure / secure

15 14% 32 30% 58 55%

11 10% 24 23% 70 67% Perceived danger of the traffic in the area

Very dangerous/ dangerous

Neither dangerous or safe

Very safe/safe

Very dangerous/ dangerous

Neither dangerous or safe

Very safe/safe

50 48% 35 33% 20 19%

56 53% 37 35% 12 11% Perceived distance of footbridge from the illegal crossing point

10

Participants who did not cross via footbridge Participants who crossed via footbridge

<3 minutes 3-7 minutes >7 minutes

<3 minutes 3-7 minutes >7 minutes

49 47% 46 44% 10 10%

61 58% 38 36% 6 6%

Perceived time to cross via the bridge

<3 minutes 3-7 minutes >7 minutes

<3 minutes 3-7 minutes >7 minutes 35 33% 66 63% 4 4%

50 48% 51 49% 4 4%

Perceived time wasted by using footbridge

Lots/considerable amount of time

Regular time

Not important amount/Not much time

Lots/considerable amount of time

Regular time

Not important amount/Not much time

47 47% 29 29% 24 24%

28 32% 27 31% 33 38%

Perceived condition of the footbridge’s access

Very bad/bad Moderate Excellent/ good

Very bad/bad Moderate Excellent/ good

52 53% 32 33% 14 14%

63 61% 28 27% 12 12%

Perceived footbridge’s condition in general

Very bad/bad Moderate Excellent/ good

Very bad/bad Moderate Excellent/ good

25 25% 27 26% 50 49%

25 24% 33 32% 46 44% Perceived footbridge’s illumination

Very inadequate/ inadequate

Moderate Very adequate/ adequate

Very inadequate/ inadequate

Moderate Very adequate/ adequate

23 24% 29 31% 43 45% 33 32% 39 38% 30 29% †Safety describes injury processes as result of traffic conflicts

±Security describes threats such as crime or assault

Significant differences were found, via t tests, according to whether the participant used the footbridge or the ground for the highway crossing, for the frequency of footbridge usage (t(208)= -9.07, p< 0.01), the perceived security of the footbridge (t(208)= -2.13, p< 0.05), the perceived distance of the footbridge from the illegal ground crossing point (t(208)= -3.77, p< 0.02), and the perceived time waste of using footbridge (t(208)= 2.99, p< 0.01), a larger proportion of the footbridge-participants reporting they used the footbridge daily or weekly, that the footbridge was safe or very safe, that the footbridge was less than 3 minutes away and took less than 3 minutes to cross. Eight participants (3.8%) reported they had previously incurred a road-related injury while crossing a road, and 58 (27.62%) participants reported they had witnessed a pedestrian being injured while crossing a road. Figure 3 shows the distribution of participants based on the observed crossing behaviour, and experiences with previous safe-critical events.

11

Figure 3. Self-injury as a pedestrian and observed pedestrian injury,

by road crossing method Predicting crossing method A backward stepwise regression model incorporating the variables in Table 1 revealed that previous injuries incurred while crossing the road, frequency of footbridge usage, perceived safety of footbridge usage, perceived security of the footbridge, and perceived distance from the illegal road crossing point were significant predictors of the road crossing method (see Table 2). For the logistic regression neither X2 nor G2 shows evidence of lack of fit (p > 0.1), (77.1% of cases correctly classified).

12

Table 2. Final Logistic Regression for Observed Footbridge Crossing†

Predictors B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for

Exp(B) L U

Previous injuries while crossing road (No = 1)

-2.38 .716 11.08 1 <.01 0.09 0.02 0.38

Frequency of footbridge usage

0.95 .138 47.37 1 <.01 2.58 1.97 3.39

Perceived safety of footbridge usage

-0.35 .171 4.21 1 .04 0.70 0.50 0.99

Perceived security of the footbridge

0.41 .181 5.23 1 .02 1.51 1.06 2.16

Perceived distance from the illegal crossing point

-0.38 .131 8.52 1 <.01 0.68 0.53 0.88

†Observed footbridge crossing (No = 0; Yes = 1) An examination of Table 2 shows that the parsimonious model identified five

variables that predicted the participant use of the footbridge as observed by the research officers, including previous injuries while crossing the road, frequency of footbridge usage, perceived safety, perceived security of the footbridge, and perceived distance from the illegal crossing point. That is, the experience of previous injuries while crossing the road, the perception that the footbridge was secure from crime or assault, and regular use of the footbridge, increased the likelihood that the participant was observed crossing the highway via the footbridge. Also, the perception that the illegal crossing point was at a further distance from the footbridge and the perception that the footbridge was safe decreased the likelihood that the participant was observed crossing the highway.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the road crossing behaviour and motivational factors influencing the decision-making process of pedestrians regarding the use, or not, of a footbridge in a high traffic flow highway in Colombia. Low- and middle-income countries have a long-recognised epidemic of road injuries and fatalities particularly for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians. Recent estimates suggest that the proportion of pedestrians using the footbridge in the study data collection region is 18% of all persons crossing this segment of the Avenida Alberto Assa highway (Bienestar Universitario, 2013), consistent with other Colombian research in which 75 percent of pedestrians were observed to cross by the road, not an adjacent pedestrian footbridge (Cantillo et al., 2015). Nearly 6 percent of participants reported they had been involved in a vehicle-pedestrian conflict, consistent with 5.3 percent of Colombian participants in a similar pedestrian-intercept interview (Villaveces et al., 2012).

Taken together, the findings suggest that the use of safe infrastructure by pedestrians – infrastructure designed to protect these vulnerable road users by separating them from the potential source of trauma – is infrequent and, in order to develop targeted countermeasures, a better understanding of the factors contributing to the use and non-use of such engineering

13

solutions is required. This is particularly important given that pedestrians who were observed to cross the highway via the road, rather than by the footbridge, were predominantly rare users of the footbridge, despite reporting that the footbridge was safe and in good condition and that crossing at the road level was dangerous or very dangerous. Moreover, more than a quarter of participants had observed a pedestrian-vehicle conflict, yet observing a pedestrian-vehicle conflict did not predict the method of road crossing, suggesting that intervening for vulnerable populations in low and middle income countries is more complex than simply providing an engineering solution adjacent to the risky road crossing location.

The Wald criteria demonstrated that the strongest predictor for the observed crossing behaviour was the frequency of footbridge usage (see Table 2). Those participants observed using the footbridge generally reported a large frequency of prior footbridge usage. This finding is consistent with claims by Räsänen et al. (2007) that footbridge use is a habit and not a coincidental behaviour. Hence, we could conclude that the observed – current – crossing behaviour is linked to past behaviour, including the factors of frequency and repetition. These findings have important theoretical implications in terms of rationalisation of the behaviour and prospective interventions. Firstly, the crossing behaviour appears to be automatized to a noteworthy extent, with pedestrians using minimum cognitive effort in their road-crossing method decision making. Such automated road crossing is associated with enormous risks for pedestrians who will be unable to understand or respond on time to emerging changes in the road-traffic system.

Importantly for intervention, countermeasures may not affect the pedestrian behaviour as long as the direct outcomes of the habit are satisfactory (Jager, 2003). Secondly, in order to modify a habit it is necessary to relate negative consequences of the habit in the long run and/or upon the social/physical environment (Jager, 2003). The current research found support for this principle, with the significance of previous injuries in predicting the observed road crossing method. Moreover, interventions that deliver information using a persuasive message are unlikely to realise safety benefits if the target does not recognise the content as relevant for their own situation (Jager, 2003). Based on this discovery, future research should examine this circumstances from a theory-based perspective, including, for example, theoretical postulates a the social learning theory (Bandura and McClelland, 1977) and Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour of Triandis (1989). Particularly, previous research in travel behaviour has found that the Triandis’ model—which includes role beliefs and habits—increased the explanatory power offered by other socio-cognitive theories such as the Theory of Planned behaviour of Ajzen (1991) (Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003).

The distance of the footbridge from the popular but risky road crossing also appears to play a role, with most participants reporting that the crossing is up to 7 minutes’ walk from the road crossing site, that crossing via the bridge would add a further 7 minutes to their journey, which was perceived as a considerable amount of time for nearly half, and one third, of the participants who did not use the footbridge and who did use the footbridge, respectively, unsurprisingly predicting the road crossing method. These findings are consistent with prior research, including Cantillo et al. (2015) and Echeverry et al. (2005) in another major Colombian city, and Arias Gallegos (2012) in a major city in Peru. One explanation frequently provided in the Latin American literature emphasises that most of the pedestrian infrastructure has been designed using engineering logic rather than

14

operationalising a systems perspective which is able to include elements of traffic psychology and human factors, suggesting that a number of barriers including a lack of transparency behind interventions may contribute to ineffective pedestrian intervention.

Transparency has been identified as fundamental to improvements in intervention within other safety-critical road safety realms (e.g., young driver road safety, Scott-Parker et al. (2015)). Furthermore, specific to footbridges in Latin America is the general security of the footbridge, which includes consideration of being a victim of a robbery or other assault, while using the footbridge, in addition to the quality and integrity of the footbridge’s construction. Importantly, in the final model, the perceived security of the footbridge was significant in predicting the usage of footbridge. The influence of crime on pedestrian habits has consistently been found to moderate pedestrian activity in Colombia (Villaveces et al., 2012), and other countries in Latin America, including Mexico (Hidalgo-Solórzano et al., 2010) and Peru (Arias Gallegos, 2012). The influential role of a positive perception regarding the security of the footbridge upon the use of the footbridge reveals the importance of connecting the social context with urban environmental design (Villaveces et al., 2012), particularly within the broader security context of Colombia.

Counterintuitively, a high perception of safety arising from footbridge usage was not associated with an increased likelihood of using the footbridge, with three quarters of the participants reporting that crossing the bridge was very safe or safe, irrespective of whether they used the footbridge or not. Indeed, the research findings suggest that safe attitudes do fail to influence behaviour, and that the path from attitudes to behaviour may not be as straightforward as the provision of engineering interventions such footbridges would suggest. While the findings imply that pedestrians were able to recognise the risk that unsafe crossing of high-traffic flow highways represents, this does not discourage them from this risky on-road crossing behaviour. These findings are consistent with prior research in developing nations (e.g., in Uganda, (Mutto et al., 2002)). Conversely, a study in a congested low-speed urban road in Turkey, found that safety beliefs could benefit footbridge crossing (Räsänen et al., 2007). Notwithstanding these disparate research findings, the importance of considering other important factors in risky and illegal behaviour of pedestrians, such as social conformity (Zhou and Horrey, 2010) and social interactions while walking (Moussaïd et al., 2010), have been increasingly recognised and operationalised. These phenomena explain how the presence of other individuals (or groups of individuals) influences the behaviour of the participants, e.g. participants may have positive safety attitudes but the high prevalence of the readily-observable less safe behaviour (i.e., crossing the road via the road rather than the footbridge) may influence their behaviour towards the most risky and less strenuous situation. Of course, this is speculative at this point, and further work will be required to clarify this issue.

The relationship observed between the perceived safety and security of the footbridge, and the use of the footbridge for safe highway crossing, adds to the body of literature regarding personal security and transport use. Conceptual models to study physical activity consistently reveal that fear and perceived risk constrain walking behaviour (Loukaitou-Sideris, 2006). The importance that perceived crime and security have over footbridge use decisions has been previously reported in Latin America, including Colombia, (Villaveces et al., 2012), Mexico (Hidalgo-Solórzano et al., 2010) and Peru (Arias Gallegos, 2012).

15

However, the relationship between perceived security and the use of safe infrastructure such as a footbridge, in relation to safety attitudes, is a largely unexplored area of the traffic psychology discipline. Of particular relevance for Colombia, it is notable also that for more than 25 years, Colombia has been considered a violent country, (Vásquez, 2015). Thus a culturally-specific high contact with crime is likely to have created emotional responses of dread or anxiety regarding personal crime among pedestrians (similar processes have been reported in India, see Hirsch et al. (2016)). In this study, these emotional responses seem to be more important than the safety attitudes. Theoretically-grounded efforts devoted to the understanding of safety-critical interactions – including personal safety and road safety outcomes – will provide practical interventions for pedestrians’ risky behaviour which require moving beyond simply creating “non-risky road safety attitudes”.

Regarding effective intervention, a breadth of research has demonstrated injury prevention education is an important and effective tool to reduce injuries and fatalities (Freeman and Rakotonirainy, 2015, King et al., 2009). The disconnect between risk appraisal (crossing by the footbridge is safe, crossing by the road is dangerous) and actual behaviour (crossing by the road) for a large group of pedestrians (and suggested by other research to be as much as 82% of the population crossing this road) with high exposure to the risk (73 percent of the sample reporting daily or weekly crossing of the highway), demonstrates a considerable dissonance between injury prevention education and road crossing behaviour. Cultural factors relevant to the Colombian context have also been found to play an important role in pedestrian road-crossing behaviour (e.g., lack of respect for traffic norms, (Villaveces et al., 2012)), and while simple interventions which are clearly demarcated as for safe pedestrian outcomes are likely to encourage pedestrian use (Havard and Willis, 2012), the simple intervention of the provided footbridge does not appear to be optimising pedestrian safety. While unable to be explored fully in the current project, future research should investigate the potential effect of social desirability in the reporting of safety attitudes, particularly when the participant is easily observed by peer pedestrians in addition to free-flowing traffic.

Indeed, it may be that the unsafe road use is further promulgated by utilitarian factors: notwithstanding that most participants rated the footbridge favourably in regards to its general condition and illumination, the finding that most participants –whether they crossed by the road or by the footbridge – reported that the footbridge access was in bad or very bad condition (comprising an unsealed and narrow footpath in close proximity to the highway) is of great importance for effective intervention. Surprisingly, the footbridge access is in good shape structurally and corresponds to the civil engineering standard in Colombia. Unfortunately, at this time we do not have further information from the participants regarding why the access to the footbridge was perceived to be in bad condition, however based on the author’s experience, this this is likely due to poor quality paintwork, readily-observable corrosion, and lack of regular and thorough cleaning. Nevertheless, future research is important to determine effective countermeasures about infrastructure construction, land resource, etc. Pedestrians are likely to be deterred from using the footbridge if they cannot easily and safely access the footbridge, particularly when regular pedestrian movements have prevented the sustained growth of vegetation which was placed to block on-ground pedestrian crossing (see Figure 1b). Arguably the most effective countermeasure is to make road

16

crossing behaviour impossible through more resistant engineering treatments. Although engineering treatments may have instantaneous results, interventions are expensive and are not available in the short or middle term particularly in developing nations such as Colombia. Moreover, the local environment is usually hot and highly humid, meaning that participants who use the footbridge as depicted in Figure 1a will exert additional effort as they cross the bridge, particularly at times of the day in which the intensity of the sun is very high, compared to pedestrians who cross via the road (Villadiego and Velay-Dabat, 2014). An alternative approach is to change the outcomes experienced (Jager, 2003), such that crossing via the footbridge is more rewarding (e.g., exercise-related health benefits whilst shielded from the sun) that could negate the extra time and effort associated with crossing via the footbridge.

6. Strengths and limitations

The strengths of the study lie in the breadth of insight gained into the factors involved in, and influential upon the method of, pedestrian crossing of a very busy highway in Colombia, with crossing behaviour observed directly rather than self-reported by participants. Caution is warranted, however, as the sample does not include pedestrians with disabilities. Additionally, although recruitment was open to participants of all age groups, elderly pedestrians were underrepresented. The overwhelming majority of the participating pedestrians were aged 11 ~ 35 years old may reflect a risk profile or factors unique to this population which may not be generalizable to other pedestrian populations.

Notwithstanding the potentially rushed responses of pedestrians (Barrero et al., 2013), self-report data is frequently criticised for potential deficits in veracity; however in the instance of developing nations with a dearth of information regarding vulnerable road users (including injury and fatality statistics), self-report data is a vital cog in the intervention machine. However, given that the current research operationalised both observed behaviour and self-reported data, there is a risk that social desirability may influence some participant responses thus further research efforts are needed to validate our findings.

Finally, only one pedestrian was intercepted at a time, with a breadth of research demonstrating that pedestrian behaviour is influenced by the behaviour of fellow pedestrians who may or may not be travelling with the target (Zhuang and Wu, 2011, McGhie et al., 2012), therefore future research could recruit groups of pedestrians as participants. Additionally, the pedestrian behaviour of one site only was examined, during one week of data collection, therefore future research should explore the pedestrian behaviour and influential factors pertaining to the use of footbridges in other high traffic-potentially high conflict regions in Colombia with a larger participant sample to alleviate concerns with regard to how representative are the participants in the current study. As such, the breadth of future research, complementing the current pilot findings, could also reveal new information that otherwise would not be available for private and public road safety practitioners and stakeholders.

7. Conclusion

17

The study examined factors relevant to highway crossing via a footbridge and via the ground, in addition to elucidating factors influential in the decision-making process of pedestrians regarding the use, or not, of the footbridges, across a high traffic flow highway. Findings indicated that crossing the footbridge may be a habit, as is crossing by the road. Interestingly, the perceived time to cross the footbridge was not considered significant, but perceived distance from the illegal ground crossing was important as was the ease with which pedestrians could access the footbridge. In addition, the Colombian social context which influences perceived footbridge safety, namely crime and violence, was a potential factor influencing crossing behaviour. Interventions should be operationalized in a systemic way in order to foster transparency among actors and introduce important ecological moderators of safety in crash prevention, particularly between vulnerable road users and vehicles. Intervention could focus on encouraging the safe use of infrastructure such that it becomes a ‘habit’ so that considerations such as distance and time, despite being valid, do not preclude pedestrian use of footbridges.

18

Appendix Cuestionario

Con que frecuencia cruza la carrera 51B?

[ ] Diariamente [ ] Semanalmente [ ] Menos de una vez por semana

[ ] Dos o más veces al mes [ ] Una vez al mes [ ] Nunca

Con que frecuencia usa el puente peatonal?

[ ] Siempre (100%) [ ] A menudo (Aprox. 75%)

[ ] Algunas veces (Aprox. 50%)

[ ] Raramente (Aprox. 25%) [ ] Nunca (0%)

Que tan seguro es usar el puente peatonal con respecto a cruzar por la calle?

[ ] Muy peligroso [ ] Peligroso [ ] Ni peligroso ni seguro [ ] Seguro [ ] Muy seguro

Que tan seguro es cruzar por la calle en otro punto diferente al puente?

[ ] Muy peligroso [ ] Peligroso [ ] Ni peligroso ni seguro [ ] Seguro [ ] Muy seguro

Que tan seguro es usar el puente peatonal si se considera posibilidad de crimen o asalto?

[ ] Muy peligroso [ ] Peligroso [ ] Ni peligroso ni seguro [ ] Seguro [ ] Muy seguro

Que tan peligroso es el tráfico en el área?

[ ] Muy peligroso [ ] Peligroso [ ] Ni peligroso ni seguro [ ] Seguro [ ] Muy seguro

Aproximadamente, Cual es la distancia del puente peatonal con respecto al lugar donde se puede cruzar por debajo del puente? [ ] <1.5 minutos [ ] <3 minutos [ ] 3-7 minutos [ ] >7 minutos [ ] >8.5 minutos Cuanto se demora en cruza el puente peatonal? [ ] <1.5 minutos [ ] <3 minutos [ ] 3-7 minutos [ ] >7 minutos [ ] >8.5 minutos Cuánto tiempo se desperdicia por usa el puente peatonal? [ ] Mucho [ ] Considerable [ ] Normal time [ ] Poco [ ] Muy poco Cuál es el estado del acceso al puente peatonal? [ ] Muy malo [ ] Malo [ ] Normal [ ] Bueno [ ] Excelente Cuál es el estado del puente peatonal? [ ] Muy malo [ ] Malo [ ] Normal [ ] Bueno [ ] Excelente Cuál es el estado de la iluminación del puente peatonal? [ ] Muy inadecuada [ ] Inadecuada [ ] Normal [ ] Adecuada [ ] Muy adecuada

19

8. References

AGRESTI, A. 2013. Categorical Data Introduction: Distributions and Inference for Categorical Data. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

AJZEN, I. 1991. Theories of Cognitive Self-RegulationThe theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

ARIAS GALLEGOS, W. L. 2012. Motivos del desuso de puentes peatonales en Arequipa. Revista Cubana de Salud Pública, 38, 84-97.

BAMBERG, S. & SCHMIDT, P. 2003. Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and behavior, 35, 264-285.

BANDURA, A. & MCCLELLAND, D. C. 1977. Social learning theory. BARRERO, L. H., QUINTANA, L. A., SÁNCHEZ, A., FORERO, A., QUIROGA, J. &

FELKNOR, S. 2013. Pedestrians' Beliefs about Road Crossing in Bogotá: Questionnaire Development. Universitas Psychologica, 12, 433-444.

BIENESTAR UNIVERSITARIO. 2013. No arriesges tu seguridad [Online]. Barranquilla: Universidad del Norte. Available: http://www.uninorte.edu.co/web/bienestar-universitario/no-arriesgues-tu-seguridad [Accessed 6 December 2015].

CANTILLO, V., ARELLANA, J. & ROLONG, M. 2015. Modelling pedestrian crossing behaviour in urban roads: A latent variable approach. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 32, 56-67.

COTTRILL, C. D. & THAKURIAH, P. 2010. Evaluating pedestrian crashes in areas with high low-income or minority populations. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 1718-1728.

DAMSERE-DERRY, J., EBEL, B. E., MOCK, C. N., AFUKAAR, F. & DONKOR, P. 2010. Pedestrians’ injury patterns in Ghana. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 1080-1088.

DEMIROZ, Y., ONELCIN, P. & ALVER, Y. 2015. Illegal road crossing behavior of pedestrians at overpass locations: factors affecting gap acceptance, crossing times and overpass use. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 80, 220-228.

DOMMES, A., GRANIÉ, M.-A., CLOUTIER, M.-S., COQUELET, C. & HUGUENIN-RICHARD, F. 2015. Red light violations by adult pedestrians and other safety-related behaviors at signalized crosswalks. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 80, 67-75.

ECHEVERRY, J., MERA, J. J., VILLOTA, J. & ZÁRATE, L. C. 2005. Actitudes y comportamientos de los peatones en los sitios de alta accidentalidad en Cali. Colombia Med, 36, 79-84.

FORERO, A., BARRERO, L., QUIROGA, J., CALDERON, F. & QUINTANA, L. 2012. Video based methods for observing pedestrians behaviour. Injury prevention, 18, A228-A228.

FREEMAN, J. & RAKOTONIRAINY, A. 2015. Mistakes or deliberate violations? A study into the origins of rule breaking at pedestrian train crossings. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 77, 45-50.

HAVARD, C. & WILLIS, A. 2012. Effects of installing a marked crosswalk on road crossing behaviour and perceptions of the environment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15, 249-260.

HIDALGO-SOLÓRZANO, E., CAMPUZANO-RINCÓN, J., RODRÍGUEZ-HERNÁNDEZ, J. M., CHIAS-BECERRIL, L., RESÉNDIZ-LÓPEZ, H., SÁNCHEZ-RESTREPO, H., BARANDA-SEPÚLVEDA, B., FRANCO-ARIAS, C. & HÍJAR, M. 2010. Motivos de uso y no uso de puentes peatonales en la Ciudad de México: la perspectiva de los peatones. salud pública de méxico, 52, 502-510.

20

HIRSCH, L., THOMPSON, K., BLEWETT, V. & EVERY, D. 2016. Death on the lifeline: The perceptions of Mumbai’s commuters to high-density-related risk. Security Journal, 29, 72-86.

HOLLAND, C. & HILL, R. 2007. The effect of age, gender and driver status on pedestrians’ intentions to cross the road in risky situations. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39, 224-237.

JAGER, W. 2003. Breaking bad habits: a dynamical perspective on habit formation and change. Human Decision-Making and Environmental Perception–Understanding and Assisting Human Decision-Making in Real Life Settings. Libor Amicorum for Charles Vlek, Groningen: University of Groningen.

KING, M. J., SOOLE, D. & GHAFOURIAN, A. 2009. Illegal pedestrian crossing at signalised intersections: Incidence and relative risk. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41, 485-490.

LEE, J., ABDEL-ATY, M., CHOI, K. & HUANG, H. 2015. Multi-level hot zone identification for pedestrian safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 76, 64-73.

LENNON, A., OVIEDO-TRESPALACIOS, O. & MATTHEWS, S. 2017. Pedestrian self-reported use of smart phones: positive attitudes and high exposure influence intentions to cross the road while distracted. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 98, 338-347.

LOUKAITOU-SIDERIS, A. 2006. Is it safe to walk? 1 neighborhood safety and security considerations and their effects on walking. CPL bibliography, 20, 219-232.

MCGHIE, A., LEWIS, I. & HYDE, M. K. 2012. The influence of conformity and group identity on drink walking intentions: Comparing intentions to drink walk across risky pedestrian crossing scenarios. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, 639-645.

MORALES-QUINTERO, F., GÓMEZ-SALAZAR, G., BONILLA-ESCOBAR, F., FANDIÑO-LOZADA, A., SANTAELLA, J. & GUTIERREZ-MARTINEZ, M. I. 2012. Assumed risk by vulnerable roadway users: traffic rules transgressions in a capital city of Southwester Colombia, 2009. Injury prevention, 18, A201-A202.

MOUSSAÏD, M., PEROZO, N., GARNIER, S., HELBING, D. & THERAULAZ, G. 2010. The Walking Behaviour of Pedestrian Social Groups and Its Impact on Crowd Dynamics. PLoS ONE, 5, e10047.

MUTTO, M., KOBUSINGYE, O. C. & LETT, R. R. 2002. The effect of an overpass on pedestrian injuries on a major highway in Kampala–Uganda. African health sciences, 2, 89-93.

NORDFJÆRN, T. & ŞIMŞEKOĞLU, Ö. 2013. The role of cultural factors and attitudes for pedestrian behaviour in an urban Turkish sample. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 21, 181-193.

OVIEDO-TRESPALACIOS, Ó. & HAWORTH, N. 2015. Developing a new index for comparing road safety maturity: Case study of the ASEAN community. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 26, 45-53.

PRIJON, T. & ERMENC, B. 2009. Influence of alcohol intoxication of pedestrians on injuries in fatal road accidents. Forensic Science International Supplement Series, 1, 33-34.

RÄSÄNEN, M., LAJUNEN, T., ALTICAFARBAY, F. & AYDIN, C. 2007. Pedestrian self-reports of factors influencing the use of pedestrian bridges. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39, 969-973.

RETTING, R. A., FERGUSON, S. A. & MCCARTT, A. T. 2003. A review of evidence-based traffic engineering measures designed to reduce pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes. American journal of public health, 93, 1456-1463.

21

SCOTT-PARKER, B., GOODE, N. & SALMON, P. 2015. The driver, the road, the rules … and the rest? A systems-based approach to young driver road safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 74, 297-305.

SCOTT-PARKER, B., WATSON, B. & KING, M. J. 2009. Understanding the psychosocial factors influencing the risky behaviour of young drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12, 470-482.

SCOTT-PARKER, B., WATSON, B., KING, M. J. & HYDE, M. K. 2012. “They’re lunatics on the road”: Exploring the normative influences of parents, friends, and police on young novices’ risky driving decisions. Safety Science, 50, 1917-1928.

SINCLAIR, M. & ZUIDGEEST, M. 2015. Investigations into pedestrian crossing choices on Cape Town freeways. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 42, 479-494.

TRIANDIS, H. C. 1989. The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological review, 96, 506.

VÁSQUEZ, J. C. R. 2015. Crime and Punishment in Colombia. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

VILLADIEGO, K. & VELAY-DABAT, M. A. 2014. Outdoor thermal comfort in a hot and humid climate of Colombia: A field study in Barranquilla. Building and Environment, 75, 142-152.

VILLAVECES, A., NIETO, L. A., ORTEGA, D., RÍOS, J. F., MEDINA, J. J., GUTIÉRREZ, M. I. & RODRÍGUEZ, D. 2012. Pedestrians' perceptions of walkability and safety in relation to the built environment in Cali, Colombia, 2009–10. Injury prevention, 18, 291-297.

WHO, W. H. O. 2015. Global status report on road safety 2015, World Health Organization. YAGIL, D. 2000. Beliefs, motives and situational factors related to pedestrians’ self-reported

behavior at signal-controlled crossings. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 3, 1-13.

ZHOU, R. & HORREY, W. J. 2010. Predicting adolescent pedestrians’ behavioral intentions to follow the masses in risky crossing situations. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 13, 153-163.

ZHUANG, X. & WU, C. 2011. Pedestrians’ crossing behaviors and safety at unmarked roadway in China. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43, 1927-1936.