4.7 Article

Evaluation of the implementation of a state government community design policy aimed at increasing local walking: Design issues and baseline results from RESIDE, Perth Western Australia

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 46-54

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.08.002

关键词

environment; neighborhood; walking; physical activity measurement; urban design; longitudinal

资金

  1. Healthway [11828] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To describe the design and baseline results of an evaluation of the Western Australian government's pedestrian-friendly subdivision design code (Liveable Neighborhood (LN) Guidelines). Methods. Baseline results (2003-2005) from a longitudinal study of people (n=1813) moving into new housing developments: 18 Liveable, 11 Hybrid and 45 Conventional (i.e., LDs, HDs and CDs respectively) are presented including usual recreational and transport-related walking undertaken within and outside the neighborhood, and 7-day pedometer steps. Results. At baseline, more participants walked for recreation and transport within the neighborhood (52.6%; 36.1% respectively), than outside the neighborhood (17.7%; 13.2% respectively). Notably, only 20% of average total duration of walking (128.4 min/week (SD159.8)) was transport related and within the neighborhood. There were few differences between the groups' demographic, psychosocial and perceived neighborhood environmental characteristics, pedometer steps, or the type, amount and location of self-reported walking (p>0.05). However, asked what factors influenced their choice of housing development, more participants moving into LDs reported aspects of their new neighborhood's walkability as important (p<0.05). Conclusions. The baseline results underscore the desirability of incorporating behavior and context-specific measures and value of longitudinal designs to enable changes in behavior, attitudes, and urban form to be monitored, while adjusting for baseline residential location preferences. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据