4.7 Article

Associations between overhead-view and eye-level urban greenness and cycling behaviors

期刊

CITIES
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 10-18

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.003

关键词

Cycling; Built environment; Urban green space; Physical activity; Eye-level greenness; Bikeability; Street greenness

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [CityU11612615, CityU11666716]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51578474, 51778552]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cycling is one type of physical activities with documented health and environmental benefits. Little consensus has been reached about the impacts of urban greenness on cycling behavior because of the widely varying estimation techniques, especially at street scale. We objectively measured the urban greenness in two ways: overhead-view greenness by Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and eye-level street greenness by Google Street View (GSV) images. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to examine the association between urban greenness and the odds of cycling (versus not cycling) for 5701 Hong Kong participants after controlling activity-influencing built environment and individual-level covariates. We found the odds of cycling were positively associated with eye-level street greenness but not with overhead-view greenness across three buffer zones: 400 m, 800 m and 1600 m. In addition, the odds of cycling were negatively associated with population density, number of bus stops, and terrain slope, while positively associated with bike lane density. To build a cycling-friendly city, planners and designers might need to pay more attention to improve citizens' daily exposure to urban greenness, instead of traditional greenspace indices such as greenspace area or number of parks. The GSV technique is a novel and reliable method for measuring eye-level urban greenness with potential usage in further healthy city studies.

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