Urban Runnability and Perceived Safety: A case study of Helsinki and Rotterdam

Urban Runnability and Perceived Safety is a comparative case study of Rotterdam and Helsinki that examines both objective and perceived environmental factors influencing runners’ route preferences and feelings of safety, with particular attention to gendered differences in safety concerns.

SOURCE: WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY & RESEARCH - LAURENS WESTERHUIS

This comparative study of urban runnability in Helsinki and Rotterdam uses a mixed-methods approach to analyse runners’ physical and perceived needs. Despite the growing popularity of running, urban planning has largely overlooked runners as a particular group of city users. This study argues that incorporating runners’ perspectives into urban planning can enhance urban livability, support well-being, and improve safety. While runners and pedestrians frequently share urban space, runnability is conceptually distinct from walkability and encompasses both physical and perceived environmental factors.

What you should know:

• The RACES framework conceptualizes runnability as a multidimensional construct comprising five factors: Runner’s profile, Accessibility, Conditions, Enjoyment, and Safety. These factors collectively shape individuals’ decisions to engage in running and the frequency of participation, encompassing socio-demographic and cultural influences, infrastructural and environmental conditions, climatic and seasonal factors, aesthetics and social atmosphere, and both perceived and actual safety.

• The study reveals socioeconomic inequalities in runnability, directly linked to the Runner’s profile dimension of the RACES framework. Running participation is markedly lower in low-SES neighbourhoods (3%) than in high-SES areas (21%), indicating that access to supportive infrastructure, safe routes, and high-quality public space is unevenly distributed.

• The Safety and Accessibility dimensions of runnability reveal deeply gendered differences in safety perceptions.

  Poor lighting is the primary safety concern for female runners, with higher fear levels significantly associated with lower running frequency and distance, suggesting that insufficient lighting acts both as a safety risk and a barrier to entry for less experienced runners.

  Familiarity with well-lit routes reduce these fears, highlighting the importance of transparent and legible route networks.

  Other urban features further constrain women’s runnability: tunnels are widely perceived as unsafe due to poor visibility and isolation, public toilets represent a critical yet unequal access issue shaping route choice, and ambiguous mixed-use paths generate conflicts with cyclists and pedestrians, reinforcing uncertainty over where runners belong in urban space.

• Consequently, women often prefer routes with higher pedestrian activity and urban park settings. While the presence of others can increase perceived safety, this also reveals a safety paradox: higher social visibility may increase exposure to catcalling and harassment.

Learn more:

• Read the study in full.