Neighbourhood walkability, road density and socio-economic status in Sydney, Australia.
Neighbourhood walkability, road density and socio-economic status in Sydney, Australia.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12940-016-0135-y
复制
发表时间：
2016-04-27
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Morgan GG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cowie CT;Ding D;Rolfe MI;Mayne DJ;Jalaludin B;Bauman A;Morgan GG
规划和交通机构在影响城市景观、出行方式和出行行为的设计方面发挥着至关重要的作用，而这反过来又会影响到社区的步行能力和居民的体育活动机会。在建筑环境中优化社区步行是可取的，然而，步行对人口健康的好处可能会被暴露在与交通相关的空气污染中的增加所抵消。本文描述了澳大利亚悉尼的邻里可步行性和加权道路密度的空间分布，加权道路密度是与交通相关的空气污染的标志。由于一些城市的空气污染暴露与社会经济地位有关，因此本文还按社会经济地位(SES)检验了加权道路密度和可步行程度的空间分布。我们使用预定义和验证的测量方法，计算了5858个悉尼居民区(代表360万人口)的可步行能力、加权道路密度(作为与交通相关的空气污染的衡量标准)和SES。我们覆盖了可步行性和加权道路密度的梯级，以定义“甜蜜点”(高可徒步性-低加权道路密度)和“酸点”(低可徒步性-高加权道路密度)社区。我们还检查了可步行能力和加权道路密度的分布，按SES五分位数计算。可步行能力和加权道路密度显示出整个地区明显的东西梯度。我们的研究发现，只有4%的悉尼人口生活在宜步性高、加权道路密度低(理想)的甜蜜点社区，而且这些社区往往离市中心更近。更大比例的社区具有限制健康的属性，即高加权道路密度或低步行能力(每个社区约20%)，超过5%的人口生活在步行能力低和加权道路密度高(最不受欢迎)的“酸点”社区。这些居民区距离市中心更远，分布更广。可步行性/加权道路密度与社区SES之间没有线性趋势。我们的可步行性和加权道路密度图以及SES的相关分析可以帮助识别在促进健康或限制健康的环境中存在不平等的社区。规划机构应寻求机会，通过改善城市发展和交通规划，增加社区的步行能力，同时将与交通有关的空气污染降至最低。本文的在线版本(doi：10.1186/s12940-0160135-y)包含补充材料，授权用户可以使用。
Planning and transport agencies play a vital role in influencing the design of townscapes, travel modes and travel behaviors, which in turn impact on the walkability of neighbourhoods and residents’ physical activity opportunities. Optimising neighbourhood walkability is desirable in built environments, however, the population health benefits of walkability may be offset by increased exposure to traffic related air pollution. This paper describes the spatial distribution of neighbourhood walkability and weighted road density, a marker for traffic related air pollution, in Sydney, Australia. As exposure to air pollution is related to socio-economic status in some cities, this paper also examines the spatial distribution of weighted road density and walkability by socio-economic status (SES). We calculated walkability, weighted road density (as a measure of traffic related air pollution) and SES, using predefined and validated measures, for 5858 Sydney neighbourhoods, representing 3.6 million population. We overlaid tertiles of walkability and weighted road density to define “sweet-spots” (high walkability-low weighted road density), and “sour- spots” (low walkability-high weighted road density) neighbourhoods. We also examined the distribution of walkability and weighted road density by SES quintiles. Walkability and weighted road density showed a clear east-west gradient across the region. Our study found that only 4 % of Sydney’s population lived in sweet-spot” neighbourhoods with high walkability and low weighted road density (desirable), and these tended to be located closer to the city centre. A greater proportion of neighbourhoods had health limiting attributes of high weighted road density or low walkability (about 20 % each), and over 5 % of the population lived in “sour-spot” neighbourhoods with low walkability and high weighted road density (least desirable). These neighbourhoods were more distant from the city centre and scattered more widely. There were no linear trends between walkability/weighted road density and neighbourhood SES. Our walkability and weighted road density maps and associated analyses by SES can help identify neighbourhoods with inequalities in health-promoting or health-limiting environments. Planning agencies should seek out opportunities for increased neighbourhood walkability through improved urban development and transport planning, which simultaneously minimizes exposure to traffic related air pollution. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0135-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.