Research Article

Modelling Road User Perceptions towards Safety, Comfort, and Chaos at Shared Space: The via Maqueda Case Study, Italy

Table 2

Descriptive statistics of variables.

VariablesUnits and frequency

Perception of infrastructureF = 1 (0.5%); E = 5 (2.5%); D = 28 (14%); C = 67 (33.5%); B = 86 (43%); A = 13 (6.5%)
GenderFemale = 94 (47%); male = 106 (53%)
Age groupOver 65 = 21 (10.5%); 55–65 = 42 (21.5%); 40–54 = 72 (36%); 25–39 = 53 (26.5%); 18–24 = 11 (5.5%)
ProfessionStudent = 29 (14.5%); full-time working = 112 (56%); retired = 51 (25.5); others = 8 (4%)
Road use frequencyRarely = 4 (2%); once a week = 12 (6%); two to three times a week = 29 (14.5%); four times a week = 74 (37%); every day = 81 (40.5%)

Safety perception (Likert scale)
Walking1 = 20(10%); 2 = 89(44.5%); 3 = 86(43%); 4 = 5(2.5%)
Cycling1 = 36(18%); 2 = 109(54.5%); 3 = 51(25.5%); 4 = 4(2%)
Using micromobility1 = 7(3.5%); 2 = 68(34%); 3 = 97(48.5%); 4 = 26(13%); 5 = 2(1%)

Comfort perception (Likert scale)
Walking1 = 4(2%); 2 = 59(29.5%); 3 = 92(46%); 4 = 44(22%); 5 = 1(0.5%)
Cycling1 = 17(8.5%); 2 = 80(40%); 3 = 86(43%); 4 = 16(8%); 5 = 1(0.5%)
Using micromobility1 = 18(9%); 2 = 47(23.5%); 3 = 80(40%); 4 = 49(24.5%); 5 = 6(3%)

Chaos perception (Likert scale)
Walking1 = 0; 2 = 11(5.5%); 3 = 62(31%); 4 = 96(48%); 5 = 31(15.5%)
Cycling1 = 0; 2 = 17(8.5%); 3 = 57(28.5%); 4 = 70(35%); 5 = 56(28%)
Using micromobility1 = 2(1%); 2 = 19(9.5%); 3 = 52(26%); 4 = 76(38%); 5 = 51(25.5%)