在城市中行走的权利,澳门、里斯本和拉斯维加斯的比较回顾

C. Balsas
{"title":"在城市中行走的权利,澳门、里斯本和拉斯维加斯的比较回顾","authors":"C. Balsas","doi":"10.1108/IJLBE-03-2017-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nThe purpose of this paper is to analyze walking activity and recent efforts at augmenting walkability conditions in the cities of Macau, Lisbon and Las Vegas. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nThe methodology consisted mostly of in-loco observations, pedestrian counts and extensive reviews of the literature, city plans and regulations. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nThe findings include the need to properly design, maintain and retrofit pedestrian facilities, while reducing safety conflicts among street users as well as the establishment and the nurturing of a culture of walking. \n \n \n \n \nResearch limitations/implications \n \n \n \n \nA fivefold international walkability research agenda with implications for other cities around the world is established: the value and the need for comparative studies and best practices; the need for urban design interventions; the cultivation of attractiveness and aesthetics; the implementation of safety, construction and maintenance criteria; and responsible funding programs. \n \n \n \n \nPractical implications \n \n \n \n \nThis paper has twofold implications for stakeholders with direct responsibilities in the design, planning, building and maintenance of streets and public spaces, and for those who simply use those places at their own discretion. \n \n \n \n \nSocial implications \n \n \n \n \nA succinct set of recommendations include the need to augment endogeneity, the need to make cities for people and not for automobiles and commitment to resolving pedestrian safety concerns. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nThis paper discusses the factors affecting street vibrancy from both a stakeholder’s and a user’s perspective. The fundamental and inalienable right to walk is analyzed using the WPPFUS framework (walking levels, purposes, primacy of walking, facilities, unique features and safety concerns).","PeriodicalId":158465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The right to walk in cities, a comparative review of Macau, Lisbon and Las Vegas\",\"authors\":\"C. Balsas\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/IJLBE-03-2017-0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThe purpose of this paper is to analyze walking activity and recent efforts at augmenting walkability conditions in the cities of Macau, Lisbon and Las Vegas. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDesign/methodology/approach \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThe methodology consisted mostly of in-loco observations, pedestrian counts and extensive reviews of the literature, city plans and regulations. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nFindings \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThe findings include the need to properly design, maintain and retrofit pedestrian facilities, while reducing safety conflicts among street users as well as the establishment and the nurturing of a culture of walking. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nResearch limitations/implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nA fivefold international walkability research agenda with implications for other cities around the world is established: the value and the need for comparative studies and best practices; the need for urban design interventions; the cultivation of attractiveness and aesthetics; the implementation of safety, construction and maintenance criteria; and responsible funding programs. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPractical implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis paper has twofold implications for stakeholders with direct responsibilities in the design, planning, building and maintenance of streets and public spaces, and for those who simply use those places at their own discretion. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nSocial implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nA succinct set of recommendations include the need to augment endogeneity, the need to make cities for people and not for automobiles and commitment to resolving pedestrian safety concerns. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nOriginality/value \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis paper discusses the factors affecting street vibrancy from both a stakeholder’s and a user’s perspective. The fundamental and inalienable right to walk is analyzed using the WPPFUS framework (walking levels, purposes, primacy of walking, facilities, unique features and safety concerns).\",\"PeriodicalId\":158465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-03-2017-0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-03-2017-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

本文的目的是分析澳门、里斯本和拉斯维加斯等城市的步行活动和最近在改善步行条件方面所做的努力。设计/方法/方法该方法主要包括现场观察、行人计数以及对文献、城市规划和法规的广泛回顾。调查结果包括需要适当地设计、维护和改造行人设施,同时减少街道使用者之间的安全冲突,以及建立和培养步行文化。研究的局限性/影响建立了一个五方面的国际步行性研究议程,并对世界各地的其他城市产生了影响:比较研究和最佳实践的价值和需要;城市设计干预的必要性;魅力与审美的培养;执行安全、施工和维修标准;以及负责任的资助项目。对于直接负责街道和公共空间的设计、规划、建设和维护的利益相关者,以及那些只是自行决定使用这些地方的人,本文具有双重含义。一组简洁的建议包括增强内生性的必要性,为人而不是为汽车而建城市的必要性,以及解决行人安全问题的承诺。本文从利益相关者和使用者的角度讨论了影响街道活力的因素。使用WPPFUS框架(步行水平、目的、步行的首要性、设施、独特功能和安全问题)分析了步行的基本和不可剥夺的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The right to walk in cities, a comparative review of Macau, Lisbon and Las Vegas
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze walking activity and recent efforts at augmenting walkability conditions in the cities of Macau, Lisbon and Las Vegas. Design/methodology/approach The methodology consisted mostly of in-loco observations, pedestrian counts and extensive reviews of the literature, city plans and regulations. Findings The findings include the need to properly design, maintain and retrofit pedestrian facilities, while reducing safety conflicts among street users as well as the establishment and the nurturing of a culture of walking. Research limitations/implications A fivefold international walkability research agenda with implications for other cities around the world is established: the value and the need for comparative studies and best practices; the need for urban design interventions; the cultivation of attractiveness and aesthetics; the implementation of safety, construction and maintenance criteria; and responsible funding programs. Practical implications This paper has twofold implications for stakeholders with direct responsibilities in the design, planning, building and maintenance of streets and public spaces, and for those who simply use those places at their own discretion. Social implications A succinct set of recommendations include the need to augment endogeneity, the need to make cities for people and not for automobiles and commitment to resolving pedestrian safety concerns. Originality/value This paper discusses the factors affecting street vibrancy from both a stakeholder’s and a user’s perspective. The fundamental and inalienable right to walk is analyzed using the WPPFUS framework (walking levels, purposes, primacy of walking, facilities, unique features and safety concerns).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信