\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={A Case Study of Walkability and Neighborhood Attachment},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2020-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2020)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2020-01-15}
\title{A Case Study of Walkability and Neighborhood Attachment}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Samaneh  Khabiri}

             \author[2]{Mohammad Reza  Pourjafar}

             \author[3]{Mohammad Saeid  Izadi}

             \affil[1]{  Tarbiat Modares University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 10 December 2019 Accepted: 31 December 2019 Published: 15 January 2020}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


The neighborhood attachment provides psychological benefits and has positive behavioral consequences for residents and communities. Much of the literature examines the impacts of individual and social indicators as predictors of place attachment. This research paper concentrates on the place dimension of this bond, examining influences of the built environment in the context of perceived walkability on neighborhood attachment and determining which variables of neighborhood walkability have the most significant impact on promoting neighborhood attachment. Moreover, the effects of neighborhood walkability variables on three main dimensions of neighborhood attachment, namely emotional, functional, and behavioral, are compared.In this study, we draw a random sample of 348 Ekbatan residents aged 15 and above by using the stratified sampling method, and a multidimensional scale is adopted to measure neighborhood attachment and walkability. The findings confirm that respondents assign high or very high ranks to both variables.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{urban planning, neighborhood attachment, walkability, correlation, and regression analyses.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
he neighborhood attachment is a psychological bond between people and the neighborhood in which they live. It encompasses emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. Numerous studies indicate that attachment to the place of residence is a psychological bond that carries beneficial effects for people and their communities \hyperref[b32]{(Lewicka, 2008)}. It also entails positive emotions such as love, joy, and pride. As put forward by \hyperref[b37]{Manzo and Perkins (2006)}, emotional connections to residential places relate to community social cohesion, organized participation, and community development. Besides, research conducted by \hyperref[b39]{Mesch and Manor (1998)} shows that high neighborhood attachment among residents leads to protective behavior that safeguards the place and environment in which they dwell.\par
The individual and social benefits of place attachment, globalization, and destruction of ties between people and neighborhoods caused by factors such as growing mobility, development of new technologies, and their inevitable outcomes in life patterns have brought place attachment to the attention of policymakers and scholars across the world. Moreover, the rapid urbanization and dominance of modernist planning discourse in Iran's urban development programs in the past decades have caused a major spatial transformation in neighborhood structures, which once featured continuity of residence. Nowadays, the neighbors' alienation and ignorance undermine those neighborhoods that, in the past, enjoyed social capital as a result of close relationships and social ties among residents \hyperref[b10]{(Fallahpasand, 2011)}. Overlooking local communities and people's emotional connection with their places of residence has led to a decline of local communities' role in building social trust and cohesion. Such circumstances call for more attention to the physiological dimensions of cities in urban development plans.\par
The previous research on place attachment often concentrates on economic, political, or social dynamics \hyperref[b37]{(Manzo and Perkins, 2006)} and underestimate the effects of physical dimensions of places on such ties \hyperref[b50]{(Scannell and Gifford, 2010)}. Today, walkability is a major topic in sustainable city and neighborhood planning and design \hyperref[b54]{(Southworth, 2005)}. The concept of walkability is concerned with the extent to which the built environment makes walking experience safe, secure, and pleasant. \hyperref[b17]{Gehl (2010)} emphasizes that "in lively, safe, sustainable and healthy cities, the prerequisite for city life is good walking opportunities"(p. \hyperref[b18]{19)}. Various benefits of walkability for cities and communities, namely economic, social, and environmental, transport, and public health have resulted in a shift in the urban policymaking approach from auto-centric planning to more sustainable urban transport modes, especially walking and cycling. This trend has made walkability a priority for urban planning and design aimed at creating walkable cities and neighborhoods through developing policy frameworks and planning guidelines \hyperref[b9]{(Dong, 2017;} {\ref Rafiemanzelat, Zebardast, and Latifi, 2017)} for the built environment.\par
This study aims at identifying the relationships between perceived walkability and residents' place attachment in Ekbatan neighborhood in Tehran by means of survey research methods and quantitative analytical tools. The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly reviews relevant theoretical framework, Section 3 lays out research methods, hypotheses, and models, and Section 4 presents results and interpretations. Finally, Section 5 sums up all discussions and concludes. 
\section[{II.}]{II.}\par
Theoretical Framework a) Neighborhood attachment \hyperref[b33]{Lewicka (2010a)} states "neighborhood is considered as the most popular spatial scale in place attachment literature". As a complicated, multilateral, and multidisciplinary concept, place attachment implies a positive psychological bond between people and places by which groups and individuals assign symbolic meaning to those places. Of course, some positive sentiments such as love, joy, and pride, unpleasant emotions like grief, distress, or desolation caused by being distant from the place or losing it, could accompany the formation of such a tie \hyperref[b51]{(Scannell and Gifford, 2013)}. The bond is also reflected in a series of specific behavior such as a tendency to maintain proximity to places \hyperref[b24]{(Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001)}, social support, pro-environmental demeanor, and a tendency to participate in local affairs \hyperref[b31]{(Lewicka, 2005)}.\par
Initially introduced by Proshansky in 1978, the concept of place identity is also referred to as emotional place attachment in the respective literature and it is known as a notion related to place attachment. The place identity is part of a person's identity and is the result of his cognition of the physical world where they live. The cognition itself consists of memories, ideas, emotions, viewpoints, values, preferences, concepts, and experiential and behavioral ideals in interaction with varied and complex surroundings that shape every person's experimental space, including cognition and behavior. Twigger-Ross and Uzzell (1996) set the formation of place identity in connection with senses of self-efficacy, continuity, self-esteem, and distinction \hyperref[b32]{(Lewicka, 2008)}. Therefore, if a particular place raises a sense of distinction, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and compliance with beliefs, it is deemed more likely to have a highlighted role in the person's identity structure.\par
Moreover, the functional attachment is another dimension of the place attachment \hyperref[b51]{(Scannell and Gifford, 2013)}, defined by  {\ref Stokols and Shumaker (1981)} as the potential of a particular place in satisfying a person's needs and goals \hyperref[b66]{(Williams, Patterson, and Roggenbuck, 1992)}. In their viewpoint, two factors affect the way people perceive place dependency; First, quality of current place to meet their needs, and second, the relative quality of comparable alternatives in addressing those needs. Korpela (1989) puts forward that there exists a close relationship between place attachment and place identity through the concept of self-efficacy \hyperref[b36]{(Livingston, Bailey and Kearns, 2008)}. Twigger-Ross and Uzzell (1996) state "feelings of selfefficacy are maintained if the environment facilitates or at least does not hinder a person's everyday lifestyle".\par
A review of the research background in conceptualizing the psychological link between people and places shows that it involves three main dimensions of behavioral, emotional-cognitive, and functional. \hyperref[b50]{Scannell and Gifford (2010)} have introduced a tripartite organizing framework for the concept of place attachment. According to their model, the place attachment is a bond that includes three main components of people (collective of individuals), process (emotional, cognitive, and behavioral aspects), and the place. Among them, the place is the most significant one that is less studied than the other two. Also, thanks to the heavy heritage of community studies on community attachment \hyperref[b33]{(Lewicka, 2010a)}, the social dimension of the place has been examined more compared to the physical aspect and the built environment.\par
A review of the studies that have subjectively assessed the impact of physical and environmental factors on perceived attachment to neighborhoods shows that neighborhood attachment is significantly greater with quiet and buildings' aesthetic pleasantness \hyperref[b3]{(Bonaiuto, Perugini, Bonnes, and Ercolani, 1999)}, lack of pollution and disorder \hyperref[b23]{(Harlan et al., 2005)}, access to the nature, housing and neighborhood quality, sense of safety, municipal services \hyperref[b15]{(Fried, 1982)}, presence of greenery (lewicka, 2010b; \hyperref[b3]{Bonaiuto et al., 1999)}. In contrast, neighborhood attachment is significantly lower with lack of opportunities, the inadequacy of cultural activities and meeting places \hyperref[b3]{(Bonaiuto et al., 1999)}, and size of buildings  {\ref (Lewicka, 2010b;}\hyperref[b19]{Gifford, 2007)}. Also, a study on a retirement community shows physical features that influence place attachment indirectly are close walking distance to the central activity building, small functional distance to neighbors, and access to a shared, enclosed outdoor garden \hyperref[b56]{(Sugihara and Evans, 2000)}. This study draws upon the physical dimension of place in order to probe into the relationship between the built environment from the virwpoint of walkability and the people's psychological connection with the neighborhood. 
\section[{b) Walkable neighborhoods}]{b) Walkable neighborhoods}\par
Walking is the most accessible and the most affordable form of mobility \hyperref[b54]{(Southworth, 2005)}, the primary, the oldest, and the most natural form of moving around for the people \hyperref[b43]{(Pakzad, 2005)}. The walkability of cities and neighborhoods came to the spotlight in the late 1960s, concurrent with growing criticisms and urban problems caused by car-oriented policies. Promotion of walking and walkable communities emerged in activities of pioneering theorists like \hyperref[b26]{Jacobs (1961)}, \hyperref[b7]{Cullen (1971)},  {\ref Ghel (1971)}, \hyperref[b1]{Alexander (1977)}, White (1980), and \hyperref[b0]{Appleyard (1980)} As demonstrated in Table  {\ref 1}, the definition of walkability does not draw merely upon increasing residents' walking in the urban environment. It is also described as a form of sustainable mobility and capabilities of the built environment which provide highquality walking experience. Thus, the quality of walking experience as being safe, easy, and enjoyable is emphasized in the definition of walkability. To \hyperref[b12]{Forsyth and Southworth (2008)}, walkability encompasses certain features such as short distance to a destination, barrierfree and traversable routes for all, safety, provision of sufficient pedestrian facilities and infrastructures, and upscale environment. 
\section[{Table 1: Definition of Walkability Definition Year Reference}]{Table 1: Definition of Walkability Definition Year Reference}\par
A measure of the urban form and the quality and availability of pedestrian infrastructure within a defined area. 
\section[{Seilo}]{Seilo}\par
The ability of the place to connect people with varied destinations within a reasonable amount of time and effort, and to offer visual interest in journeys throughout the network. 
\section[{Southworth}]{Southworth}\par
The extent to which the built environment is walking friendly. 
\section[{Abley}]{Abley}\par
The extent to which walking is readily available as safe, connected, accessible, and pleasant mode of transport. 
\section[{Steve}]{Steve}\par
The extent to which characteristics of the built environment and land use may or may not be conductive to residents in the area walking for either leisure, exercise or recreation, to access services, or to travel to work. 
\section[{Leslie et al.}]{Leslie et al.}\par
The extent to which the built environment is friendly to the presence of people living, shopping, visiting, enjoying or spending time in an area. 
\section[{Nosal}]{Nosal}\par
A place in which residents of all ages and abilities feel that it is safe, comfortable, convenient, efficient, and welcoming to walk, not only for recreation but also for utility and transportation. 
\section[{American Planning Association}]{American Planning Association}\par
The quality of walking conditions in an urban space which is inclusive of comfort, safety, connectedness and permeability (inclusiveness of neighborhood design). 
\section[{Litman}]{Litman}\par
The extent to which the built environment is friendly to people moving on foot in an area.   {\ref 2006}) hold the belief that walkability is not merely a motion pattern but is a type of sociability among neighbors that would eventually affect the physical, mental, and spiritual health of members of the community.\par
Designing and planning such neighborhoods has received a considerable amount of attention. According to the study carried out by the World Health Organization (2008), walking may improve the life quality and mental health of people and prevent obesity, ailment, and disability by increasing their daily physical activity. It also lowers the stress level, and thus, helps lift people's spirits and strengthens the sense of social community, which brings about increased satisfaction among residents. In fact, walkable neighborhoods promote a certain lifestyle, which not only improves the physical and mental health of people but also entails the development of local communities. Hence, walking is both a physical and social activity \hyperref[b18]{(Gemzøe, Kirknaes, and Søndergaard, 2006)}. As found by various researches, neighborhood walkability increases physical activity \hyperref[b14]{(Frank et al., 2010)} that in turn has health benefits for residents, ease social, economic know each other, build trust among neighbors, and increase their social involvement \hyperref[b9]{(Dong, 2017)}.\par
On the one hand, a walkable neighborhood provides a safe environment for its inhabitants. The safety of walking increases the number of pedestrians, promotes the culture of walking, reduces the speed of motor vehicles, and puts pedestrians at the top of the transportation hierarchy. Also, a decrease in the number of injuries resulted from the lower speed of motor vehicles creates a safe environment for everyone and particularly for children. On the other hand, the absence of pedestrians in neighborhood spaces and decreased walkability would reduce safety, security, and social ties, and would give rise to environmental problems such as air and noise pollution, deteriorated public health, lack of identity and sense of belonging, and boredom. The undesirable effect of impaired neighborhood walkability on the sense of community is considered to be one of the gravest problems in every country \hyperref[b47]{(Rezazadeh, 2011)}. 
\section[{i. Principles and criteria of neighborhood walkability}]{i. Principles and criteria of neighborhood walkability}\par
The degree of neighborhood walkability depends on several factors. A strand of literetaure attempts to identify the criteria and principles for the built environment that facilitate walking. As inferred from past research, the walkability has three main criteria, namely proximity  {\ref (} Proximity is the ability of street networks to facilitate pedestrian access to local destinations \hyperref[b21]{(Gori et al., 2014;} {\ref Brookield, 2017)}. Access to daily needs within an acceptable amount of time and effort \hyperref[b54]{(Southworth, 2005)} is the main issue in the proximity criterion. Versatile, small, and fine-grain blocks may shorten the distance between the residents and local services. A convenient walking distance is set to be between 365 to 610 meters long or may last between 5 to 10 minutes.\par
Owen et al. (  {\ref 2007}) define connectivity as accessibility, choice of mobility methods, and continuity of the path to various local destinations. As specified by the American Planning Association (2010), multiple route connections do not make pedestrians take lengthy detours to reach their destinations. Connectivity and continuity of paths also require carefully-designed midblock crossings with curb extensions, median refuges, and other features to ensure pedestrian safety. Connectivity of routes is of high significance as it affects both time and distance of walking, and as a result, people's tendency to walk.\par
However, Ghel (2010) believes that the quality of the path people walk through may change the sense of desirable distance for users of the space. He goes on to explain that attractive and comfortable routes that offer rich experiences make users forget the remoteness and enjoy experiences as they happen. Scholars list various components such as safety, security, and delightfulness as indicators of quality for paths and spaces. \hyperref[b54]{Southworth (2005)} names the width of pathways, paving, landscaping, signing, and lighting as the main principles to assess the excellence of paths. Sufficient lighting has a highly significant effect on the safety of pedestrians in public spaces \hyperref[b35]{(Litman and Blair, 2011)}. Additionally, paths and spaces need to be safe for everyone, including those physically challenged, the elderly, and children. Shortening distance between junctions and designing well-marked pedestrian crossings help traffic calming and enhance pedestrian safety. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Methodology and Model Specification a) Introduction to Ekbatan}]{Methodology and Model Specification a) Introduction to Ekbatan}\par
Year 2020\par
With 33 blocks and 15,675 residential units, Ekbatan town in Tehran is the largest residential complex in Iran that was designed and built with foreign investment in the 1960s. Its main goals were to control population growth, redistribute, and accommodate civil servants and the middle-class. Since then, this neighborhood has managed to preserve its original design and form. In terms of municipal administrative divisions, the town has an organization called City Council Assistant (or Shorayari in the local language). Ekbatan has three separate sets of buildings, each called a phase, and they currently accommodate a population of 44,981 people \hyperref[b38]{(Marbaghi et al., 2018)}. In the total constructed area of the town, the five-tothirteen-floor buildings and the service usage occupy about 58 percent and 5 percent, respectively. The Ushaped blocks have formed semi-public spaces with diverse green spaces. These open and green spaces make up one of the prominent Ekbatan physical and landscape features. In addition to improving air quality and creating a proper landscape, green spaces are also crucial for a vibrant social life leading to a continued presence of residents in these public spaces. Although the design of these spaces differs in each of the neighborhood's three phases, the green space has high per-capita square meters in all of them. Also, separating pedestrians and vehicle movements in the main public spaces and the semipublic spaces of each block has created a safe and secure feeling for the residents (see Figure \hyperref[fig_6]{2}). The neighborhood's Phase 1 consists of 10 residential blocks (6,511 residential units), two sports stadiums, one mosque, and 11 local markets or bazaars (see Figure \hyperref[fig_4]{3}). Markets are located in the center of Phase 1 along the north-south axis, and the local services and cultural-recreational spaces are concentrated on this axis (see Figure \hyperref[fig_5]{4}). These markets that are built in three floors integrate modern commercial complexes with traditional bazaars. They also form corridor-like walkways consisting of outdoor and indoor spaces, and at some points, have views to the green spaces of the blocks. This interconnected network of green and open spaces that links the markets of Phase 1 is known as the neighborhood's most active public space. Residents come to this place not only for shopping but also for meeting and greeting neighbors, social interaction, and leisure activities.   Phase 2 is located in the eastern part of the neighborhood, covering 19 blocks and 7,978 residential units, and comprising three markets, one public library, one mosque, and six schools (see Figure  {\ref 5}). The pecular layout of blocks in this phase creates a green pedestrian corridor in the middle, which is called the Health Road by the residents (see Figure  {\ref 6}). Due to its open spaces, Golha Commercial Complex is also used as another public space in the neighborhood. MegaMall Commercial Complex with a city-wide function, which includes facilities such as a cinema campus, hypermarket, reputable retailers, and brands, is located in Phase 2. Phase 3, consisting of 4 blocks and covering 2,086 residential units, is located in the northern part of the neighborhood and has been in operation since 1991 after the construction of Phases 1 and 2 (see Figure 7). Offering its services to beyond the Ekbatan residents, Sarem Hospital, which is a well-known center for infertility treatment, is located in this phase. There is also a local market with 40 shops, one mosque, one local park, and two schools in Phase 3. Further, the Ekbatan neighborhood community center, which is called Saraye Mahallah, and city council assistant of the neighborhood are both located in this phase.  
\section[{b) Sample data}]{b) Sample data}\par
This paper uses the survey method and questionnaires to collect data. Assuming a population proportion of 0.5 and a confidence level of 95 percent, \hyperref[b27]{Krejcie and Morgan (1970)} suggest that the sample should comprise 384 respondents. We distributed Year 2020 close-ended questionnaires among three phases in Ekbatan using the stratified random sampling. Our sample data consists of questionnaires that are filled in by 384 Ekbatan residents. 
\section[{c) Research variables and their quantitative measurements}]{c) Research variables and their quantitative measurements}\par
The two major research variables are neighborhood attachment and neighborhood walkability, the former as the dependent variable and the latter as the explanatory variable. The quantification and measurement of these theoretical concepts are based on methods reviewed in the literature. As explained in the previous section, neighborhood attachment is a psychological bond between people and the neighborhood and comprises three aspects, namely emotional-cognitive, functional, and behavioral. Place identity is emotional and cognitive side, place dependency is functional aspect, and residential stability and social support are behavioral criteria.\par
Measurement of the place attachment in quantitative studies utilizes survey methods and selfreport scales. In this paper, a one-to-five scale of 20 different items is used to measure how Ekbatan residents perceive cognitive-emotional, functional, and behavioral dimensions of attachment in their town (see Table \hyperref[tab_1]{2}). These items that we apply to prepare questionnaires are extracted from some previous studies such as \hyperref[b67]{Williams and Roggenbuck (1989)}, \hyperref[b24]{Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001)}, \hyperref[b68]{Williams and Vaske (2003)}, and \hyperref[b31]{Lewicka (2005)}.   
\section[{Reference: Authors}]{Reference: Authors}\par
The present article adopts the latter to indirectly measure walkability in Ekbatan by surveying the perception of residents about the walkability of their neighborhood using the inquiry method and questionnaire. The theoretical definition of neighborhood walkability also has three criteria including proximity, connectivity of the local road network, and spatial quality that itself has three sub-criteria of safety, security, and desirability. It might be noted that accessibility and reaching local services on foot are measured under proximity aspect. Connectivity measures the ease of access to other means of transportation both inside and outside the Ekbatan, including city transport networks. Spatial quality is measured by three sub-categories of safety, security, and environmental desirability. The safety of walkways and the security of spaces for movement of various age groups are rated by pedestrians' sense of safety and proper lighting of pathways. Also, desirability is evaluated according to pathways' beauty, cleanliness, and delightfulness. Similarly, walkability is measured using close-ended questions with answers according to a Likert scale. Respondents assessed each criterion by answering questions designed for specific items using a five-point scale (see Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3}).\par
According to validity and reliability tests implemented for neighborhood attachment, Cronbach's alpha is 0.921, composite reliability is 0.857, and the AVE value is 0.611. These statistics for neighborhood walkability are 0.925, 0.874, and 0.703, respectively. Given that acceptable values for Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability are bigger than 0.7 and for the AVE are larger than 0.5, the reliability and validity of the structure for these two research variables are confirmed. Also, when the coefficients of Cronbach's alpha are calculated upon the elimination of any items in these two variables, there are no significant changes in Cronbach's alpha. Thus, it is not deemed necessary to exclude any of them. 
\section[{d) Correlation and regression analyses}]{d) Correlation and regression analyses}\par
We examine the relationships between neighborhood attachment and neighborhood walkability using correlation and regression analyses. The summary statistics of research variables, correlation coefficients, regression models, results, and their interpretations are reported in the next section.\par
IV. 
\section[{Empirical Analyses a) Demographic characteristics of respondents}]{Empirical Analyses a) Demographic characteristics of respondents}\par
Demographic characteristics of 384 survey participants are as follows. 49 percent are female, and 51 percent are male. 90 percent were born outside Ekbatan, and 72 percent spent their childhood in places other than Ekbatan. The average age is 41. About 20 percent are aged below 30. About 40 percent are aged below 50, and the remainder are more than 50 years old. The most frequent age group is 50-60. 30 percent are single, 11 percent are married with no children, and 59 percent are married with children. Furthermore, 76 percent are homeowners, and the remainder are tenants. 25 percent have postgraduate degrees, 35 percent hold bachelor's degrees, and the remainder have lower educational levels. 
\section[{b) Summary statistics}]{b) Summary statistics}\par
As reported in Table \hyperref[tab_3]{4}, the average rates respondents have given to both neighborhood attachment and neighborhood walkability are significantly larger than 3 on a one-to-five scale. It means that, on average, survey participants have high or very high attachment to their town and assess Ekbatan's walkability as desirable or very desirable. Among indicators of neighborhood attachment, residential stability has the highest score, and social support is the only exception that is not rated high or very high in the neighborhood. Also, among walkability indicators, residents rated the spatial quality of the town higher than others. Among the three sub-indicators, it is quality safety that has received the highest score from residents.  
\section[{c) Correlation analysis}]{c) Correlation analysis}\par
Then, the correlation analysis is applied to measure the co-movement between two variables of walkability and neighborhood attachment in Ekbatan. We use Kendall's tau-b to estimate the direction and strength of the concordance between each pair of variables. As reported in Table \hyperref[tab_4]{5}, Kendall's correlation coefficients among all components of walkability and neighborhood attachment are positive and significant. These findings indicate that perceptions of walkability and neighborhood attachment change in tandem among Ekbatan residents. Having detected a positive relationship between walkability and neighborhood attachment in Ekbatan, we then move to investigate this causal relationship in more detail. To this end, we extended our regression model into a multivariate equation in which the neighborhood attachment and its four indicators are individually regressed on five main components of walkability, namely proximity, continuity, security, environmental desirability, and safety. The results from these linear regression models enable us to see which component of walkability has stronger influence on neighborhood attachment and its four indicators. The results are reported in Table \hyperref[tab_6]{7}. Among the theoretical components of walkability, only two of them, namely proximity and environmental desirability, are the significant drivers of neighborhood attachment in Ekbatan. Therefore, it might be concluded that a close distance to leisure facilities, parks, markets, and other local amenities improves attachment among Ekbatan residents. Similarly, green spaces, hygiene, and cleanness enhance people-place bond in the town. Security is the third significant factor that strengthens the sense of neighborhood attachment. However, it has a smaller effect on neighborhood attachment compared to proximity and environmental desirability.\par
Since all regression variables are quantified using the 1-5 Likert scale, the absolute value of slope coefficients allows us to determine which variable has the biggest impact on neighborhood attachment. Among the three significant variables of proximity, environmental desirability, and security, the first one has the largest significant impact, and the third one has the smallest significant effect on neighborhood attachment among Ekbatan residents. These three variables may account for 39 percent of variations in neighborhood attachment. Other components of walkability do not seem to have a significant effect on neighborhood attachment. The findings are similar for every four components of neighborhood attachment. In the cases of place identity, place dependency, and residential stability, the results show that proximity, environmental desirability, and security are still the main drivers. The social support is the only exception among components of neighborhood attachment. The proximity and safety are the driving factors for the self-reported perception of social support among Ekbatan residents.\par
V. 
\section[{Concluding Remarks}]{Concluding Remarks}\par
The neighborhood attachment is a positive psychological bond that has emotional, cognitive, and behavioral aspects with benefits for the individual and the community. These benefits include the social capital, residence stability, and social unity. Impairment of emotional bonds between people and the neighborhood and residence instability may lead to a decline in the social capital and wealth and has negative impacts on the social participation of residents, turning them into passive citizens.\par
Studying the influence of social and physical features of the neighborhood on residents' attachment may guide urban planners and designers to manage psychological bonds between people and the neighborhood through appropriate urban development plans. In line with prior place attachment studies in neighborhood scale, this paper examines the relationships between walkability as the capacity of the built environment and the spatial features of the town in encouraging and supporting enjoyable pedestrian mobility in a safe and secure space in Ekbatan. People's perception of walkability is assessed by three physical aspects of a neighborhood, i.e., proximity, connectivity, and spatial quality.\par
The survey results point out that Ekbatan residents have a positive assessment of walkability in their neighborhood and have high or very high attachment to their residence. Evidence also confirms high correlations between walkability and neighborhood attachment in Ekbatan. Thus, increased walkability may enhance neighborhood attachment. Besides, results from multiple linear regression models show that walkability indicators are significant factors to explain changes in neighborhood attachment. The estimated coefficient of determination implies that walkability accounts for 39 percent of changes in neighborhood attachment in our sample data. It is also evident that among the defined indicators for walkability, three of them, namely proximity, safety, and environmental desirability, are the significant predictors of neighborhood attachment. Among these three factors, proximity has the largest impact on neighborhood attachment.\par
The results of this study are similar to those of \hyperref[b56]{Sugihara and Evans (2000)}. They find proximity and short walking distance to community service centers are the major factors which affect the elderly's attachment to the local community. Our findings generalize these facts to all age groups above 18. Further, the results are in line with \hyperref[b56]{Sugihara and Evans (2000)} that show social support as having a positive relationship with smaller functional distances and proximity to central buildings. Similarly, other studies such as \hyperref[b23]{Harlan et al. (2005)}, \hyperref[b15]{Fried (1982)},  {\ref Lewicka (2010b)}, and Bonaiuto et al.,  {\ref (1999)} show that environmental desirability in terms of green spaces and low pollution have a positive effect on neighborhood attachment.\par
Therefore, it could be inferred that a proper design for local services and amenities and locating them within walkable distances and building pedestrian spaces of high quality with proper lighting, which bring about a sense of safety among the users, have improved the sense of place attachment among Ekbatan residents. Likewise, providing an enjoyable experience of walking in these pathways by building green spaces, increasing visual delightfulness, and regular cleaning has raised neighborhood attachment in the neighborhood. These are practical implications that could be used in preparing urban planning and design guidelines and checklists.\par
The results also give some insights into further research avenues. Future studies may examine the impact of walkability and each of its indicators on place attachment at a different spatial scale, for example, in the city range. Also, this study could be conducted in neighborhoods with lower levels of attachment to allow comparisons of findings in different levels of such as \hyperref[b11]{Félonneau (2004)}, counter-argue that people who are more attached to their neighborhood tend to perceive its physical characteristics as more pleasant. Accordingly, by designing and measuring objective indicators to evaluate neighborhood walkability, we obtain some evidence that could be contrasted with those of perception-based assessments.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-5.png}
\caption{\label{fig_3}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3}\includegraphics[]{image-6.png}
\caption{\label{fig_4}Figure 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4}\includegraphics[]{image-7.png}
\caption{\label{fig_5}Figure 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2}\includegraphics[]{image-8.png}
\caption{\label{fig_6}Figure 2 :}\end{figure}
   \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.40385934819897085\textwidth}P{0.0286735277301315\textwidth}P{0.38733562035448826\textwidth}P{0.030131503716409377\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Components\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Items\\
Emotional and cognitive bonds\tabcellsep Place identity\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{10 items including the following: Memories come to my mind when}\\
\tabcellsep Residential\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{3 items including the following: Even if I can afford to live in other}\\
Behavioral consequences\tabcellsep stability Social support\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{neighborhoods, I would continue residing in Ekbatan./ I would feel very sad and desolated if I am forced to leave Ekbatan./ How long have you lived in Ekbatan? 5 items including the following: So far, whenever there was a form of objection to undesired alterations in Ekbatan, I have collaborated with other residents to prevent or stop it (e.g. Writing and signing petitions, protests, etc)./ I take part in management of the block in which I am living./ I wish to take part in decision-making procedures and other issues pertaining to Ekbatan./ In case I spot someone vandalizing the public spaces and facilities of Ekbatan, I}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{would warn them or try to stop them.}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Reference: Authors}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{The literature review points out two general}\tabcellsep Suminski, Poston, Petosa, Stevens, and Katzenmoyer,\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{approaches in measuring the walkability of}\tabcellsep 2005).\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{neighborhoods. The first approach employs application}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{software to quantify objectively the influence of the built}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{environment on walking behavior (Leslie, Butterworth,}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{and Edwards, 2006; frank et al., 2006; Cole, Leslie,}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Bauman, Donald, and Owen, 2006; Rutt and Coleman,}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{2005). In contrast, the second approach measures}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{neighborhood walkability subjectively by identifying}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{opinion and perception of users with reference to}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{aforesaid three principles of walkability (Burton, Turrell,}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Oldenburg, and Sallis, 2005; De Bourdeaudhuji,}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Teixeira, Cardon, and Deforche, 2005; Hooker, Wilson,}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Griffin, and Ainsworth, 2005; Plaut, 2005; Spence et al.,}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{2006; Van Lenthe, Brug, and Mackenbush, 2005;}\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: I am in various spaces in Ekbatan./ I have knowledge of Ekbatan history./ Ekbatan is a unique and special place to me./ I am proud of living in Ekbatan./ I like Ekbatan and feel attached to it./ Living in Ekbatan brings me peace of mind./ I define part of my identity by being an Ekbatan resident./ Ekbatan has become part of me. Ekbatan complies with my lifestyle which is based on my beliefs, tastes, tendencies, values, and orientations./ Residents of Ekbatan are homogeneous as for lifestyle, culture, and religious beliefs. Place depencency 2 items including the following: Ekbatan is a neighborhood that caters well to the needs of its residents./ Ekbatan caters to the needs of its residents better than other neighborhoods in Tehran.]} 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.01144524236983842\textwidth}P{0.038150807899461396\textwidth}P{0.8004039497307002\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep How satisfied are you with accessibility of schools and educational\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep institutions in Ekbatan?/ How satisfied are you with accessibility of\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep local markets and green grocers?/ How satisfied are you with\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep accessibility of sports facilities and fields in Ekbatan?/ How satisfied\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep are you with accessibility and number of extent parks and green\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep spaces?\\
\tabcellsep Continuity\tabcellsep 2 items including the following: How satisfied are you with\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep pedestrian accessibility of public transport inside Ekbatan?/ How\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep satisfied are you with fast and easy access to streets and highways\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep outside Ekbatan?\\
\tabcellsep Security\tabcellsep 2 items including the following: I feel secure while walking around\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep open and green spaces in Ekbatan./ How satisfied are you with\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep lighting of passageways and public spaces in Ekbatan?\\
\tabcellsep Environmental\tabcellsep 3 items including the following: Open and green spaces in Ekbatan\\
Spatial quality\tabcellsep desirability Safety\tabcellsep are delightful and I enjoy being around them or walking in them./ How satisfied are you with hygiene and cleanliness of open and public spaces in Ekbatan?/ How satisfied are you with visual beauty and landscaping of green spaces in Ekbatan? 3 items including\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: the following: Open and public spaces in Ekbatan are safe and proper for walking./ Open and public spaces in Ekbatan are safe and proper for children's walking./ Open and public spaces in Ekbatan are safe and proper for senior citizens' walking.]} 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.136796875\textwidth}P{0.081015625\textwidth}P{0.20453125\textwidth}P{0.10359375\textwidth}P{0.1115625\textwidth}P{0.11421875\textwidth}P{0.09828125\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Variables\tabcellsep Average rate\tabcellsep Standard deviation\tabcellsep Skewness\tabcellsep Kurtosis\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Neighborhood attachment}\tabcellsep 3.584\tabcellsep 0.841\tabcellsep -0.526\tabcellsep 2.880\\
Indicators\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Place identity Place dependency Residential stability Social support\tabcellsep 3.379 3.882 4.063 3.011\tabcellsep 1.013 1.035 1.258 1.060\tabcellsep -0.484 -0.889 -0.420 -0.317\tabcellsep 2.394 3.429 2.356 2.806\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Neighborhood walkability}\tabcellsep 3.780\tabcellsep 0.792\tabcellsep -0.925\tabcellsep 4.144\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Proximity\tabcellsep 3.606\tabcellsep 0.878\tabcellsep -0.695\tabcellsep 3.675\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Continuity\tabcellsep 3.832\tabcellsep 1.024\tabcellsep -1.050\tabcellsep 4.271\\
Indicators\tabcellsep Sub-indicators\tabcellsep Spatial quality Security Environmental desirability Safety\tabcellsep 3.902 3.728 3.893 4.085\tabcellsep 0.912 1.022 0.893 1.190\tabcellsep -1.164 -0.732 -0.934 -1.934\tabcellsep 4.398 2.963 4.138 6.787\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{* and ** denote statistically significant at 5 percent and 1 percent, respectively.}\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.13469945355191257\textwidth}P{0.015482695810564663\textwidth}P{0.16876138433515483\textwidth}P{0.1145719489981785\textwidth}P{0.1006375227686703\textwidth}P{0.10373406193078324\textwidth}P{0.11147540983606558\textwidth}P{0.1006375227686703\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Variables\tabcellsep Neighborhood attachment\tabcellsep Place identity\tabcellsep Place dependency\tabcellsep Residential stability\tabcellsep Social support\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Neighborhood walkability\tabcellsep 0.37 **\tabcellsep 0.36 **\tabcellsep 0.41 **\tabcellsep 0.24 **\tabcellsep 0.20 **\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Proximity\tabcellsep 0.42 **\tabcellsep 0.41 **\tabcellsep 0.43 **\tabcellsep 0.29 **\tabcellsep 0.22 **\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Continuity\tabcellsep 0.26 **\tabcellsep 0.25 **\tabcellsep 0.30 **\tabcellsep 0.17 **\tabcellsep 0.16 **\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Spatial quality\tabcellsep 0.35 **\tabcellsep 0.34 **\tabcellsep 0.39 **\tabcellsep 0.21 **\tabcellsep 0.18 **\\
Sub-\tabcellsep indicators\tabcellsep Security Environmental desirability Safety\tabcellsep 0.32 ** 0.39 ** 0.28 **\tabcellsep 0.30 ** 0.38 ** 0.26 **\tabcellsep 0.34 ** 0.45 ** 0.32 **\tabcellsep 0.18 ** 0.25 ** 0.18 **\tabcellsep 0.20 ** 0.18 ** 0.15 **\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{* and ** denote statistically significant at 5 percent and 1 percent, respectively.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4305676855895196\textwidth}P{0.07330786026200874\textwidth}P{0.002783842794759825\textwidth}P{0.0009279475982532751\textwidth}P{0.0009279475982532751\textwidth}P{0.0009279475982532751\textwidth}P{0.0009279475982532751\textwidth}P{0.06402838427947598\textwidth}P{0.0009279475982532751\textwidth}P{0.0445414847161572\textwidth}P{0.0009279475982532751\textwidth}P{0.0009279475982532751\textwidth}P{0.05010917030567685\textwidth}P{0.07145196506550218\textwidth}P{0.06402838427947598\textwidth}P{0.04268558951965065\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{The regression model}\tabcellsep i Y\tabcellsep =\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep +\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep X\tabcellsep i\tabcellsep +\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep i\tabcellsep is estimated five times. In all five regression models\\
\multicolumn{13}{l}{reported, the explanatory variable is neighborhood walkability. The dependent variable in each}\\
\multicolumn{13}{l}{of five regression models is mentioned below.}\\
Regression parameters ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{Neighborhood attachment 1.307 **}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{6}{l}{Dependent variable Place identity Place attachment 0.910 ** 1.237 **}\tabcellsep Residential stability 2.045 **\tabcellsep Social Support 1.035 **\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{(0.234)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{(0.282)}\tabcellsep (0.283)\tabcellsep (0.350)\tabcellsep (0.300)\\
?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{0.602 ** (0.057)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{0.653 ** (0.070)}\tabcellsep 0.700 ** (0.069)\tabcellsep 0.534 ** (0.085)\tabcellsep 0.523 ** (0.080)\\
F R ADF 2\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{180.97 ** 0.32 -16.60 **}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{134.67 ** 0.26 -18.48 **}\tabcellsep 153.11 ** 0.29 -18.70 **\tabcellsep 48.56 ** 0.11 -16.14 **\tabcellsep 68.69 ** 0.15 -16.25 **\\
\multicolumn{13}{l}{Figures in parantheses are heteroskedasticity-and-autocorrelation consistent (HAC) standard errors;}\\
\multicolumn{13}{l}{ADF stands for Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic calculated for regression residuals;}\\
\multicolumn{13}{l}{* and ** denote statistically significant at 5 percent and 1 percent, respectively.}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
The regression model\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: *Figures in parantheses are heteroskedasticity-and-autocorrelation consistent (HAC) standard errors;ADF stands for Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic calculated for regression residuals; * denotes statistically significant at 5 percent; and ** denotes statistically significant at 1 percent.]} 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 7 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2020 Global Journals} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[ American Journal of Preventive Medicine]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{American Journal of Preventive Medicine}  		 (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[ Iranian Jurnal of Urban Management Studies]{b48}\label{b48} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{Iranian Jurnal of Urban Management Studies}  		9  (28)  p. .  	 	 (In Farsi) 
\bibitem[Alexander et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction},  		 			C Alexander 		,  		 			S Ishikawa 		,  		 			M Silverstein 		,  		 			M Jacobson 		,  		 			I Fiksdahl-King 		,  		 			A Shlomo 		.  		1977. Oxford University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Fallahpasand ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘A study about City Structure in tehran’.  		 			A Fallahpasand 		.  	 	 		\textit{Iranian Juornal of Iranshahr Thouth}  		2011. 5  (14)  p. .  	 	 (In Farsi) 
\bibitem[Williams et al. ()]{b66}\label{b66} 	 		‘Beyond the community metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place’.  		 			D R Williams 		,  		 			E M Patterson 		,  		 			W J Roggenbuck 		.  	 	 		\textit{Leisure Sciences}  		1992. 14 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Forsyth and Southworth ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Cities afootpedestrians, walkability, and urban design’.  		 			A Forsyth 		,  		 			M Southworth 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Urban Design}  		2008. 13  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gehl ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{Cities for people},  		 			J Gehl 		.  		2010. Washington D.C.: Island Press.  	 
\bibitem[Scannell and Gifford ()]{b50}\label{b50} 	 		‘Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework’.  		 			L Scannell 		,  		 			R Gifford 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Environmental Psychology}  		2010. 30 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Pakzad ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		\textit{Design guideline for urban spaces in Iran. Tehran, publication of Department of Housing and Urban Developmen},  		 			J Pakzad 		.  		2005.  	 	 (In Farsi) 
\bibitem[Southworth ()]{b54}\label{b54} 	 		‘Designing the walkable city’.  		 			M Southworth 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Urban Planning and Development}  		2005. 131  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Krejcie and Morgan ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘Determining sample size for research activities’.  		 			R V Krejcie 		,  		 			D W Morgan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Educational and Psychological Measurement}  		1970.  	 
\bibitem[Dong ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Does walkability undermine neighborhood safety?’.  		 			H Dong 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Urban Design}  		2017. 22  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Marbaghi et al. ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		\textit{Ekbatan town, modern civility of iraninan Architecture},  		 			B Marbaghi 		,  		 			F Tavakoli 		,  		 			N Hatamnejad 		,  		 			E Khosravi 		,  		 			F Rahimi 		,  		 			K Kavousian 		.  		2018. Tehran: Payam Publication.  	 	 (In Farsi) 
\bibitem[De Bourdeaudhuij et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Environmental and psychosocial correlates of physical activity in portuguese and belgian adults’.  		 			I De Bourdeaudhuij 		,  		 			P J Teixeira 		,  		 			G Cardon 		,  		 			B Deforche 		.  	 	 		\textit{Public Health Nutrition}  		2005. 8 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rutt and Coleman ()]{b49}\label{b49} 	 		‘Examining the relationships among built environment, physical activity, and body mass index in El Paso’.  		 			C D Rutt 		,  		 			K J Coleman 		.  	 	 		\textit{TX. Preventive Medicine}  		2005. 40  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Suminski et al. ()]{b57}\label{b57} 	 		‘Features of the Neighborhood environment and walking by U.S. adults’.  		 			R R Suminski 		,  		 			W S Poston 		,  		 			R L Petosa 		,  		 			E Stevens 		,  		 			L M Katzenmoyer 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Journal of Prev}  		2005. 28 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Manzo and Perkins ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘Finding common ground: the importance of place attachment to community participation and planning’.  		 			L C Manzo 		,  		 			D D Perkins 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Planning Literature}  		2006. 20 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Handy et al. ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning’.  		 			S L Handy 		,  		 			M G Boarnet 		,  		 			R Ewing 		,  		 			R E Killingsworth 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Journal of Preventive Medicine}  		2002. 23  (2)  p. .  	 	 (Supplement 1) 
\bibitem[Gehl ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{Life between buildings: using public space},  		 			J Gehl 		.  		1987. Washington D.C.: Island Press.  	 
\bibitem[Appleyard et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{Livable streets},  		 			D Appleyard 		,  		 			M S Gerson 		,  		 			M Lintell 		.  		1980. Berkeley: University of California Press.  	 
\bibitem[Félonneau ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Love and loathing of the city: Urbanophilia and urbanophobia, topological identity and perceived incivilities’.  		 			M L Félonneau 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Environmental psychology}  		2004. 24 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Frank et al. ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Many pathways from land use to health’.  		 			L D Frank 		,  		 			J F Sallis 		,  		 			T L Conway 		,  		 			J E Chapman 		,  		 			B E Saelens 		,  		 			W Bachman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of American Planning Association}  		2006. 72 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Williams and Roggenbuck ()]{b67}\label{b67} 	 		‘Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary results’.  		 			D R Williams 		,  		 			J W Roggenbuck 		.  	 	 		\textit{Paper presented at the session on Outdoor Planning and Management},  				 (San Antonio, Texas)  		1989.  	 
\bibitem[Leslie et al. (2006)]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		‘Measuring the walkability of local communities using geographic information systems data. Paper presented at Walk21-VII’.  		 			E Leslie 		,  		 			L Butterworth 		,  		 			M Edwards 		.  		 \url{http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.2432\&rep=rep1\&type=pdf}  	 	 		\textit{the 7th International Conference on Walking and Livable Communities},  				 (Melbourne, Australia)  		2006. October 23-25(2006. 29 June 2019.  	 	 (The Next Steps) 
\bibitem[Lee and Talen ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘Measuring walkability: a note on auditing methods’.  		 			S Lee 		,  		 			E Talen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Urban Design}  		2014. 19  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bonaiuto et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment’.  		 			M Bonaiuto 		,  		 			A Aiello 		,  		 			M Perugini 		,  		 			M Bonnes 		,  		 			A P Ercolani 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Environmental Psychology}  		1999. 19 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Harlan et al. ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{Neighborhood attachment in urban environments},  		 			S L Harlan 		,  		 			L Larsen 		,  		 			E J Hackett 		,  		 			S Wolf 		,  		 			B Bolin 		,  		 			D Hope 		.  		2005. Philadelphia.  	 	 (In Paper presented at the Annual Sociological Association) 
\bibitem[Lee and Moudon ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		‘Neighborhood design and physical activity’.  		 			C Lee 		,  		 			V A Moudon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Building Research and Information}  		2008. 36  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Van Lenthe et al. ()]{b63}\label{b63} 	 		‘Neighborhood inequalities in physical inactivity: the role of neighborhood attractiveness, proximity to local facilities and safety in the Netherlands’.  		 			F J Van Lenthe 		,  		 			J Brug 		,  		 			J P Mackenbush 		.  	 	 		\textit{Soc Sci Med}  		2005. 60 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gemzøe et al. ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		\textit{New city life},  		 			L Gemzøe 		,  		 			S Kirknaes 		,  		 			B S Søndergaard 		.  		2006. Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press.  	 
\bibitem[Plaut ()]{b44}\label{b44} 	 		‘Non-motorized commuting in the US’.  		 			P Plaut 		.  	 	 		\textit{Transport Res Part D}  		2005. 10 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Moudon et al. ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		‘Operational definitions of walkable neighborhood: theoretical and empirical insights’.  		 			V A Moudon 		,  		 			Ch Lee 		,  		 			D Allen 		,  		 			A D Cheadle 		,  		 			C H Garvin 		,  		 			D Johnson 		,  		 			Th L Schmid 		,  		 			D Robert 		,  		 			R D Weathers 		,  		 			L Lin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Physical Activity and Health}  		2006. 3 p. .  	 	 (Suppl 1, S99-S117 Literature, 20) 
\bibitem[Owen et al. ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		 			N Owen 		,  		 			E Cerin 		,  		 			E Eva Leslie 		,  		 			L Dutoit 		,  		 			N Cofee 		,  		 			L D Frank 		,  		 			A E Bauman 		,  		 			G Hugo 		,  		 			B E Saelens 		,  		 			J F Sallis 		.  		\textit{Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of australian adults},  				2007.  	 
\bibitem[Litman and Blair ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		\textit{Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning (A Guide to Best Practices)},  		 			T Litman 		,  		 			R Blair 		.  		2011. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.  	 
\bibitem[Livingston et al. ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		\textit{People's attachment to place -the influence of neighbourhood deprivation},  		 			M Livingston 		,  		 			N J Bailey 		,  		 			A Kearns 		.  		2008.  		 			Glasgow University: Joseph Rowntree Foundation 		 	 
\bibitem[Spence et al. ()]{b55}\label{b55} 	 		‘Perceived neighborhood correlates of walking among participants visiting the Canada on the move website’.  		 			J C Spence 		,  		 			R C Plotnikoff 		,  		 			L S Rovniak 		,  		 			K A Martin Ginis 		,  		 			W Rodgers 		,  		 			S A Lear 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Public Health}  		2006. 97 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hooker et al. ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘Perceptions of environmental supports for physical activity in african american and white adults in a rural county in south carolina’.  		 			S P Hooker 		,  		 			D K Wilson 		,  		 			S F Griffin 		,  		 			B E Ainsworth 		.  	 	 		\textit{Preventing Chronic Disease}  		2005. 2  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rezazadeh et al. ()]{b47}\label{b47} 	 		\textit{Perceptual measurement of neighborhood walk ability and its influential factors in neighborhoods (Case study: Chizar neighborhood)},  		 			R Rezazadeh 		,  		 			E Zebardast 		,  		 			L Latifioskouie 		.  		2011.  	 
\bibitem[Twigger-Ross and Uzzell ()]{b59}\label{b59} 	 		‘Place and identity processes’.  		 			C L Twigger-Ross 		,  		 			D L Uzzell 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Environmental Psychology}  		1996. 16 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sugihara and Evans ()]{b56}\label{b56} 	 		‘Place attachment and social support at continuing care retirement communities’.  		 			S Sugihara 		,  		 			G W Evans 		.  	 	 		\textit{Environment and Behavior}  		2000. 32 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lewicka ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		‘Place attachment, place identity and place memory: restoring the forgotten city past’.  		 			M Lewicka 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Environmental Psychology}  		2008. 28 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hidalgo and Hernandez ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions’.  		 			M C Hidalgo 		,  		 			B Hernandez 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Environmental Psychology}  		2001. 21 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lewicka ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		‘Place attachment: how far have we come in the last 40 year’.  		 			M Lewicka 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Environmental Psychology}  		2010a. 3  (31)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Un-Habitat ()]{b60}\label{b60} 	 		\textit{Planning and design for sustainable urban mobility: global report on human settlements (1 St Etition). Routledge. United Nations Human Settlements Programme},  		 			Un-Habitat 		.  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Planning and urban design standards American Planning Association ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Planning and urban design standards’.  	 	 		\textit{American Planning Association}  		2006. John Wiley \& Sons, Inc.  	 
\bibitem[Pucher and Dijkstra ()]{b45}\label{b45} 	 		‘Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: lessons from the Netherlands and Germany’.  		 			J Pucher 		,  		 			L Dijkstra 		.  	 	 		\textit{American journal of public health}  		2003. 93  (9)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rafiemanzelat et al. ()]{b46}\label{b46} 	 		 			R Rafiemanzelat 		,  		 			M Emadi 		,  		 			A Kamali 		.  		\textit{City sustainability: the influence of walkability on built environments. Transportation Research Procedia},  				2017. 24 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fried ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Residential attachment: sources of residential and community satisfaction’.  		 			M Fried 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Social Issues}  		1982. 38 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Brookfield ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Residents' preferences for walkable neighborhoods’.  		 			K Brookfield 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of urban Design}  		2017. 22  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Schlossberg et al. ()]{b52}\label{b52} 	 		‘School trips: effects of urban form and distance on travel mode’.  		 			M Schlossberg 		,  		 			J Greene 		,  		 			P Phillips 		,  		 			B Johnson 		,  		 			R Parker 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of the American Planning Association}  		2006. 72  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mesch and Manor ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		‘Social ties, environmental perception and local attachment’.  		 			G S Mesch 		,  		 			O Manor 		.  	 	 		\textit{Environment and Behavior}  		1998. 30 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cole et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Socio demographic variations in walking for transport and for recreation or exercise among adult australians’.  		 			R Cole 		,  		 			E Leslie 		,  		 			A Bauman 		,  		 			M Donald 		,  		 			N Owen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Physical Activity \& Health}  		2006. 3 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Un-Habitat ()]{b61}\label{b61} 	 		\textit{Streets as public spaces and drivers of urban prosperity. United Nations Human Settlements Programme},  		 			Un-Habitat 		.  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Urban Observatory Centure ()]{b58}\label{b58} 	 		\textit{The atlas of urban quality of life in tehran metropolis. First edition. Publication of Information and Communication Technology Organization of Tehran Municipality},  		 			Tehran Urban Observatory Centure 		.  		2017.  	 	 (In Farsi) 
\bibitem[Cullen ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{The concise townscape},  		 			G Cullen 		.  		1971. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.  	 
\bibitem[Gifford ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘The consequences of living in high-rise buildings’.  		 			R Gifford 		.  	 	 		\textit{Architectural Science Review}  		2007. 50 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Jacobs ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		\textit{The death and life of great american cities},  		 			J Jacobs 		.  		1961. New York: Random House.  	 
\bibitem[Frank et al. ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘The development of a walkability index: application to the neighborhood quality of life study’.  		 			L D Frank 		,  		 			J F Sallis 		,  		 			B E Saelens 		,  		 			L Leary 		,  		 			K Cain 		,  		 			T L Conway 		,  		 			P M Hess 		.  	 	 		\textit{British Journal of Sports Medicine}  		2010. 44 p. .  	 
\bibitem[The future we want. The city we need. United Nations Human Settlements Programme World Urban Campaign ()]{b69}\label{b69} 	 		‘The future we want. The city we need. United Nations Human Settlements Programme’.  	 	 		\textit{World Urban Campaign}  		2014.  	 
\bibitem[Williams and Vaske ()]{b68}\label{b68} 	 		‘The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach’.  		 			D R Williams 		,  		 			J J Vaske 		.  	 	 		\textit{Forest Science}  		2003. 49 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Scannell and Gifford ()]{b51}\label{b51} 	 		‘The psychology of place attachment In’.  		 			L Scannell 		,  		 			R Gifford 		.  	 	 		\textit{Environmental psychology: principles and practice},  				 			R Gifford 		 (ed.)  		2013. Optimal Books. p. .  	 	 (5th edition) 
\bibitem[Burton et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘The relative contributions of psychological, social, and environmental variables to explain participation in walking, moderate and vigorous intensity leisure-time physical activity’.  		 			N W Burton 		,  		 			G Turrell 		,  		 			B Oldenburg 		,  		 			J F Sallis 		.  	 	 		\textit{Phys Act Health Journal}  		2005. 2 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Giles-Corti and Donovan ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity’.  		 			B Giles-Corti 		,  		 			R J Donovan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Social Science and Medicine}  		2002. 54 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Vojnovic et al. ()]{b64}\label{b64} 	 		‘The renewed interest in urban form and public health: promoting increased physical activity in Michigan’.  		 			I Vojnovic 		,  		 			C Jackson-Elmoore 		,  		 			J Holtrop 		,  		 			S Bruch 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cities}  		2006. 23  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Whyte ()]{b65}\label{b65} 	 		\textit{The social life of small urban spaces},  		 			William H Whyte 		.  		1980. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.  	 
\bibitem[Towards an urban renaissance: final report of the urban task force chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside UTF ()]{b62}\label{b62} 	 		‘Towards an urban renaissance: final report of the urban task force chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside’.  	 	 		\textit{UTF}  		1999. Spon Press.  	 
\bibitem[Seilo ()]{b53}\label{b53} 	 		\textit{Walkability and urban form: A GIS-based Analysis of Nodal Development Areas in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area},  		 			P T Seilo 		.  		2004. Eugene: City Planning.  	 
\bibitem[Gori et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Walkability Indicators for Pedestrian-Friendly Design’.  		 			S Gori 		,  		 			M Nigro 		,  		 			M Petrelli 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of the Transportation Research Board}  		2014. 2464 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lewicka ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘Ways to make people active: role of place attachment, cultural capital and neighborhood ties’.  		 			M Lewicka 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Environmental Psychology}  		2005. 4 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lewicka ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		‘What makes neighborhood different from home and city? effects of place scale on place attachment’.  		 			M Lewicka 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Environmental Psychology}  		2010. 30 p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
