4.7 Review

Neighbourhood walkability: A review and bibliometric analysis

期刊

CITIES
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 43-61

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.04.015

关键词

Neighbourhood walkability; Community walkability; GIS; Bibliometric analysis; Review

资金

  1. Humanities and Social Science Fund of the Ministry of Education of China [19YJCZH154]
  2. Beijing Social Science Fund [17GLB030]
  3. Youth Talents Programme of the Central University of Finance and Economics [QYP1711]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [QL18012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Walkability is defined as the extent to which the built environment is friendly to people who walk, which benefits the health of residents and increases the liveability of cities, and studies of walkability have increasingly attracted the attention of researchers worldwide. To provide a roadmap for research on neighbourhood/community walkability, this paper critically reviews the literature on neighbourhood/community walkability studies using geographical information systems (GIS), which is an objective tool universally used in this area. The literature review covers 136 papers that were published between 2008 and 2018 and retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. Firstly, a bibliometric analysis is conducted to give a general view of recent studies. Secondly, a detailed critical review is performed from three major perspectives concerning neighbourhood walkability, namely, walkability measurements, the built environment and health, and the applications of walkability. Finally, research trends and future directions are discussed. The implications include: (a) factors affecting walkability and their interactions should be investigated; (b) more accurate data need to be available for the measurement of walkability; (c) relevant research in the contexts of different countries could be expanded and compared; (d) the application of walkability could be developed in terms of depth and width.

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