Developing a Model for Planting Trees Along the Walkway


  • Mohd Azizul Ladin School of Engineering & Information Technology, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia
  • Shaban Ismael Albrka Sustainable Urban Transport Research Centre, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
  • Amiruddin Ismail Sustainable Urban Transport Research Centre, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
  • Riza Atiq Abdullah O.K. Rahmat Sustainable Urban Transport Research Centre, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia



Non-motorized transport, walking, active transportation, pedestrian walkway


Non-motorized transport (NMT), also called active transport and human power transportation denotes to walking, cycling and many other variants of transportation such as scooters. Walking is the foundation of other modes of transport and is also the main mode of transportation. Strategies for upgrading footpaths offer a range of benefits to society, which can increase the safety and comfort of pedestrians and cyclists, expand travel options for non-rivers, reduce conflicts between motorists and other road users, reduce automobile traffic and enhance recreational experiences and improve health. Based on these priorities, this study was conducted specifically to study the needs of planting trees along the walkway that will influence road users’ willingness to use it. The primary objective of this study is to develop a transport model for the willingness to walk if there is sufficient foliage cover along a walkway. The linear regression method was used to produce transport model. This model can be used to determine the suitability of planting the trees. Results showed that the highest number of pedestrians are willing to walk a maximum distance of 400m if there is inadequate trees along the pathway. Planting trees result in a willingness of pedestrians in UKM to walk between 400 to 800 m, double the distance compared to the normal state.


Litman, T. 2011. Evaluating Non-motorized Transportation Benefits And Costs. Victoria: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Shaheen, S. 2011. Hangzhou Public Bicycle: Understanding Early Adoption and Behavioral Response to Bikesharing In Hangzhou, China.

Andersen, L.B., et al. 2000. All-cause Mortality Associated with Physical Activity During Leisure Time, Work, Sports, and Cycling to Work. Archives of Internal Medicine. 160(11): 1621.

Bassett Jr, D.R., et al. 2008. Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and Australia. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 5(6): 795–814.

Bauman, A., et al. 2008. Cycling: Getting Australia Moving: Barriers, Facilitators and Interventions to Get More Australians Physically Active Through Cycling. Melbourne: Cycling Promotion Fund,

Huy, C., et al. 2008. Health, Medical Risk Factors, and Bicycle Use in Everyday Life in the Over-50 Population. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity. 16(4): 454.

Ohta, M., et al. 2007. Effect of the Physical Activities in Leisure Time and Commuting to Work on Mental Health. Journal of Occupational Health. 49(1): 46–52.

Oja, P., I. Vuori, and O. Paronen. 1998. Daily Walking and Cycling to Work: Their Utility as Health-enhancing Physical Activity. Patient Education and Counseling. 33: S87–S94.

Litman, T. 2005. Well Measured-Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning.

Love, D.C., et al. 2012. Is the Three-foot Bicycle Passing Law Working in Baltimore, Maryland? Accident Analysis & Prevention.

Grava, S. 2003. Urban Transportation Systems Choices for Communities. McGraw-Hill.




How to Cite

Developing a Model for Planting Trees Along the Walkway. (2014). Jurnal Teknologi, 69(2).