城市宜居性指数:制定与政策相关的城市宜居性综合衡量标准,评估与交通方式选择的关联。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Carl Higgs, Hannah Badland, Koen Simons, Luke D Knibbs, Billie Giles-Corti
{"title":"城市宜居性指数:制定与政策相关的城市宜居性综合衡量标准,评估与交通方式选择的关联。","authors":"Carl Higgs, Hannah Badland, Koen Simons, Luke D Knibbs, Billie Giles-Corti","doi":"10.1186/s12942-019-0178-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Designing healthy, liveable cities is a global priority. Current liveability indices are aggregated at the city-level, do not reflect spatial variation within cities, and are often not aligned to policy or health.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To combine policy-relevant liveability indicators associated with health into a spatial Urban Liveability Index (ULI) and examine its association with adult travel behaviours.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed methods to calculate spatial liveability indicators and the ULI for all residential addresses in Melbourne, Australia. Associations between the address-level ULI and adult travel behaviours from the 2012-2014 Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA) (n = 12,323) were analysed using multilevel logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses to evaluate impact of methodological choices on distribution of liveability as assessed by the ULI and associations with travel mode choice were also conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Liveability estimates were calculated for 1,550,641 residential addresses. ULI scores were positively associated with active transport behaviour: for each unit increase in the ULI score the estimated adjusted odds ratio (OR) for: walking increased by 12% (95% Credible Interval: 9%, 15%); cycling increased by 10% (4%, 17%); public transport increased by 15% (11%, 19%); and private vehicle transport decreased by 12% (- 9%, - 15%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ULI provides an evidence-informed and policy-relevant measure of urban liveability, that is significantly and approximately linearly associated with adult travel behaviours in the Melbourne context. The ULI can be used to evaluate progress towards implementing policies designed to achieve more liveable cities, identify spatial inequities, and examine relationships with health and wellbeing.</p>","PeriodicalId":48739,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Geographics","volume":"18 1","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6558748/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Urban Liveability Index: developing a policy-relevant urban liveability composite measure and evaluating associations with transport mode choice.\",\"authors\":\"Carl Higgs, Hannah Badland, Koen Simons, Luke D Knibbs, Billie Giles-Corti\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12942-019-0178-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Designing healthy, liveable cities is a global priority. Current liveability indices are aggregated at the city-level, do not reflect spatial variation within cities, and are often not aligned to policy or health.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To combine policy-relevant liveability indicators associated with health into a spatial Urban Liveability Index (ULI) and examine its association with adult travel behaviours.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed methods to calculate spatial liveability indicators and the ULI for all residential addresses in Melbourne, Australia. Associations between the address-level ULI and adult travel behaviours from the 2012-2014 Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA) (n = 12,323) were analysed using multilevel logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses to evaluate impact of methodological choices on distribution of liveability as assessed by the ULI and associations with travel mode choice were also conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Liveability estimates were calculated for 1,550,641 residential addresses. ULI scores were positively associated with active transport behaviour: for each unit increase in the ULI score the estimated adjusted odds ratio (OR) for: walking increased by 12% (95% Credible Interval: 9%, 15%); cycling increased by 10% (4%, 17%); public transport increased by 15% (11%, 19%); and private vehicle transport decreased by 12% (- 9%, - 15%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ULI provides an evidence-informed and policy-relevant measure of urban liveability, that is significantly and approximately linearly associated with adult travel behaviours in the Melbourne context. The ULI can be used to evaluate progress towards implementing policies designed to achieve more liveable cities, identify spatial inequities, and examine relationships with health and wellbeing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48739,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Geographics\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6558748/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Geographics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-019-0178-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Geographics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-019-0178-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:设计健康、宜居的城市是全球的当务之急。目前的宜居指数都是在城市层面汇总的,不能反映城市内部的空间差异,而且往往与政策或健康不符:目标:将与健康相关的政策性宜居指标整合到空间城市宜居指数(ULI)中,并研究其与成人出行行为的关系:方法:我们开发了计算澳大利亚墨尔本所有住宅地址的空间宜居性指标和 ULI 的方法。采用多层次逻辑回归法分析了 2012-2014 年维多利亚州旅行和活动综合调查(VISTA)(n = 12,323 人)中的地址级 ULI 与成人旅行行为之间的关联。此外,还进行了敏感性分析,以评估方法选择对 ULI 评估的宜居性分布的影响,以及与出行方式选择的关联:对 1,550,641 个住宅地址进行了宜居性估算。ULI得分与积极交通行为呈正相关:ULI得分每增加一个单位,以下方面的调整后估计几率比(OR):步行增加12%(95%可信区间:9%,15%);骑自行车增加10%(4%,17%);公共交通增加15%(11%,19%);私家车交通减少12%(-9%,-15%):在墨尔本,ULI 是衡量城市宜居性的一个有据可依且与政策相关的指标,它与成年人的出行行为有显著的近似线性关系。ULI 可用于评估旨在实现更宜居城市的政策的实施进展,识别空间不平等现象,以及研究与健康和福利之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Urban Liveability Index: developing a policy-relevant urban liveability composite measure and evaluating associations with transport mode choice.

The Urban Liveability Index: developing a policy-relevant urban liveability composite measure and evaluating associations with transport mode choice.

The Urban Liveability Index: developing a policy-relevant urban liveability composite measure and evaluating associations with transport mode choice.

The Urban Liveability Index: developing a policy-relevant urban liveability composite measure and evaluating associations with transport mode choice.

Background: Designing healthy, liveable cities is a global priority. Current liveability indices are aggregated at the city-level, do not reflect spatial variation within cities, and are often not aligned to policy or health.

Objectives: To combine policy-relevant liveability indicators associated with health into a spatial Urban Liveability Index (ULI) and examine its association with adult travel behaviours.

Methods: We developed methods to calculate spatial liveability indicators and the ULI for all residential addresses in Melbourne, Australia. Associations between the address-level ULI and adult travel behaviours from the 2012-2014 Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA) (n = 12,323) were analysed using multilevel logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses to evaluate impact of methodological choices on distribution of liveability as assessed by the ULI and associations with travel mode choice were also conducted.

Results: Liveability estimates were calculated for 1,550,641 residential addresses. ULI scores were positively associated with active transport behaviour: for each unit increase in the ULI score the estimated adjusted odds ratio (OR) for: walking increased by 12% (95% Credible Interval: 9%, 15%); cycling increased by 10% (4%, 17%); public transport increased by 15% (11%, 19%); and private vehicle transport decreased by 12% (- 9%, - 15%).

Conclusions: The ULI provides an evidence-informed and policy-relevant measure of urban liveability, that is significantly and approximately linearly associated with adult travel behaviours in the Melbourne context. The ULI can be used to evaluate progress towards implementing policies designed to achieve more liveable cities, identify spatial inequities, and examine relationships with health and wellbeing.

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
International Journal of Health Geographics
International Journal of Health Geographics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
2.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leader among the field, International Journal of Health Geographics is an interdisciplinary, open access journal publishing internationally significant studies of geospatial information systems and science applications in health and healthcare. With an exceptional author satisfaction rate and a quick time to first decision, the journal caters to readers across an array of healthcare disciplines globally. International Journal of Health Geographics welcomes novel studies in the health and healthcare context spanning from spatial data infrastructure and Web geospatial interoperability research, to research into real-time Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-enabled surveillance services, remote sensing applications, spatial epidemiology, spatio-temporal statistics, internet GIS and cyberspace mapping, participatory GIS and citizen sensing, geospatial big data, healthy smart cities and regions, and geospatial Internet of Things and blockchain.
×
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