4.5 Article

Neighbourhood design and physical activity

期刊

BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION
卷 36, 期 5, 页码 395-411

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09613210802045547

关键词

active living; built environment; cycling; design; health; neighbourhood; physical activity; public health; spatial configuration; urban design; walking; well-being

资金

  1. Walkable and Bikeable Communities [SIP-18]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [1-U48/CCU209663]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health problems related to physical inactivity have become a global health challenge affecting people from the full spectrum of income, age, and ethnicity. This paper examines if neighbourhood environments are associated with physical activity, especially walking and cycling. It analyses 608 respondent survey data from Washington State in the US and Geographic Information System-derived measures of the neighbourhood environment. Respondents reported traffic volume to be the most significant barrier, and good lighting to be the most important facilitator of walking and cycling. Utilitarian destinations, such as grocery stores, restaurants, retail stores and convenience stores, were significant correlates of walking and moderate-intensity physical activities, while housing type, sports facility and transportation infrastructure were correlated with vigorous physical activities. Active people rated higher for their neighbourhood attributes including safety, visual quality, knowing neighbours, seeing many other people walking and cycling, and the availability of sports facilities, parks, and bike racks. Simple interventions such as street lighting, pavements/sidewalks, street trees, benches, bike lanes or trails, bike racks, and traffic-calming devices appeared to hold some promise in promoting physical activities in neighbourhoods. Long-term solutions should include strategies to enhance overall aesthetics, safety, accessibility, street connectivity, and social interactions among neighbours.

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

4.5
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