Success Story | Pedestrian Research
From 1,137 conversations to safer streets
How the Zambia Road Safety Trust and Walk21 used participatory mapping to document pedestrian experiences across Lusaka and turn everyday accounts of unsafe crossings, traffic speed, poor paths and limited accessibility into evidence for road safety action.
Case-study summary
A city-wide account of walking conditions
The research problem
Visible danger was not yet mapped precisely enough
Pedestrian risk in Lusaka is visible around schools, markets, public transport stops and major corridors. People walk beside fast traffic where footways may be narrow, damaged, obstructed or absent. Crossing opportunities can be distant or poorly protected, while drainage, lighting, road maintenance and personal security further shape the experience.
General awareness of these problems was not enough. Engineers and decision-makers needed evidence showing which road, crossing, junction or section of public space required attention first.
African–European research partnership
Combining a European research tool with local knowledge
TRANS-SAFE brings together African and European road safety institutions under Horizon Europe Grant Agreement 101069525. Within the project, Walk21 Foundation provided its participatory Walkability App and trained ten ZRST surveyors through an online session.
ZRST led the application of the tool in Lusaka. Its team identified relevant study areas, conducted street interviews, interpreted local conditions and connected the evidence to schools, communities, road authorities and wider policy work.
The partnership worked because neither side operated alone. Walk21 contributed a structured, georeferenced method. ZRST contributed local access, field capacity and knowledge of how people use Lusaka’s roads, footpaths, public transport areas and neighbourhood streets.
Research method
Participatory evidence gathered street by street
Pedestrian interviews
Surveyors asked people to describe positive experiences, concerns and negative experiences while walking.
Georeferenced observations
Each experience was linked to its location and to environmental factors affecting the person’s walk.
Inclusive profiles
The tool recorded age, gender, ability, journey purpose and familiarity with the area.
Place-based analysis
Results were compared across ten locations to identify areas performing well and areas requiring intervention.
The research records pedestrian perceptions and observed environmental conditions at selected locations during a defined period. It does not represent every street in Lusaka and does not, by itself, demonstrate casualty reduction.
Main findings
What Lusaka’s pedestrians reported
Positive experiences accounted for 35.1% of the records. Concerns represented 31%, while negative experiences represented 33.9%. Taken together, concerns and negative experiences made up almost two-thirds of all experiences.
Crossings were the most frequent issue
Safe and unsafe crossings were the environmental factor mentioned most often. The evidence supports targeted crossing reviews rather than general city-wide assumptions.
Every corridor had a different risk profile
Katima Mulilo Road was strongly associated with speed and driver behaviour, while Leopards Hill Road raised concerns about drainage, lighting and path quality.
Some streets performed better
Great East Road, Chilimbulu Road and Tokyo Road produced more positive experiences, providing local examples from which improvements elsewhere may be informed.
Five areas recorded more negative experiences
Katima Mulilo Road, Lumumba Road, Great North Road, Cairo Road and the Railway Corridor were associated with poorer reported walkability.
Age affected the walking experience
Children under 12 and adults over 65 reported more negative experiences, particularly concerning crossings, speed and driver conduct.
Pedestrians with disabilities faced added barriers
Assisted and impaired pedestrians reported concerns about street design, missing paths, crossings, lighting, seating and ramps.
Why the research matters
Pedestrian safety is an infrastructure and governance issue
The study shows why pedestrian safety cannot be addressed only through awareness messages. A child cannot apply crossing advice where no safe crossing exists. A commuter cannot remain on a footway that is missing or flooded. A person with a disability cannot use infrastructure that lacks continuous, accessible design.
The maps give councils, road agencies, donors and companies a basis for prioritising safer crossings, paths, drainage, lighting, junction treatment, traffic calming and public transport access. They also show where further technical assessment is required before works are approved.
From research evidence to safer speeds
Connecting walkability findings to ZRST’s 30 km/h work
Traffic speed emerged repeatedly in the walkability findings, particularly in locations used by children, older pedestrians and people crossing busy roads. This supports ZRST’s longer-standing work on 30 km/h speed environments around schools and highly pedestrianised areas.
ZRST contributed advocacy and implementation support connected to Zambia’s 2020 school- and pedestrian-zone speed framework, working alongside public authorities and other road safety partners. The walkability evidence strengthens the case for applying lower speeds where pedestrian exposure is greatest.
A posted sign is not a complete speed-management programme. Effective 30 km/h areas require road design, traffic calming, enforcement, communication, speed measurement and clear institutional ownership.
Supporting Lusaka’s walking and cycling policy
Evidence for implementation and investment
ZRST has worked with Lusaka City Council on the development and promotion of the Lusaka Cycling and Pedestrian Safety Policy through technical input, stakeholder engagement and sustained advocacy for safer walking and cycling.
ZRST’s institutional records state that the policy was signed in May 2024 by the Mayor of Lusaka, Chilando Chitangala. The policy establishes direction; the walkability research helps identify where implementation should begin.
Georeferenced pedestrian evidence can support project prioritisation, budget discussions and assessment of whether future investment reaches the locations and people facing the greatest barriers.
From research to action
Priority actions arising from the study
Target unsafe crossings
Assess crossing demand, vehicle speed, visibility and pedestrian routes before selecting approved treatments.
Create continuous walking space
Address missing paths, obstructions, drainage and breaks in accessible pedestrian movement.
Prioritise vulnerable users
Apply child-, age- and disability-inclusive design when planning crossings, paths and public transport access.
Manage operating speeds
Use speed surveys, engineering, enforcement and monitoring around schools and high-pedestrian corridors.
Improve junction safety
Reduce crossing distance, turning conflict and uncertainty at intersections used by large numbers of pedestrians.
Build local-authority capacity
Support councils to use mapped evidence in project selection, consultation, budgeting and maintenance.
Engage employers and operators
Address fleet speeds, site access and pedestrian interaction around depots, markets, schools and workplaces.
Repeat and evaluate
Extend assessments and repeat data collection after interventions to determine whether experiences improve.
Funding opportunity
What further support could finance
Donors, research institutions, foundations and companies can support expanded walkability mapping, school-route studies, speed surveys, crossing audits, community consultation, council training, demonstration projects, before-and-after evaluation and public pedestrian-safety data.
Each programme should begin with an agreed research question, defined locations, an approved method, clear authority involvement and a plan showing how findings can inform practical decisions.
Monitoring and evidence
Keeping research, outputs and impact distinct
ZRST can document future work through approved protocols, field records, georeferenced observations, pedestrian and speed counts, photographs, consultation records, mapped risks, authority participation, public reports and financial reporting.
Research findings identify conditions and priorities. Programme outputs show what was delivered. Longer-term evaluation is required to determine whether behaviour, pedestrian experience or casualty outcomes changed.
Research gallery
Pedestrian evidence in practice
Research and policy sources
Evidence and further reading
- European Commission project record: TRANS-SAFE, Grant Agreement 101069525
- Research consortium evidence: TRANS-SAFE project and consortium
- Public research tool: TRANS-SAFE Walkability App and Lusaka case study
- Full research report: Walkability Safety Assessment: Lusaka, Zambia
- European research partner: Walk21 Foundation
- ZRST organisational evidence: ZRST Pedestrian and Cycling Safety
- ZRST policy evidence: Zambia Road Safety Trust institutional and policy record
Support research that turns pedestrian evidence into safer speeds, better streets and accountable public action.