Development of a neighborhood drivability index and its association with transportation behavior in Toronto
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Car driving is a form of passive transport that is associated with an increase in physical inactivity, obesity, air pollution and noise. Built environment characteristics may influence transport mode choice, but comprehensive indices for built environment characteristics that drive car use are still lacking, while such an index could provide tangible policy entry points. OBJECTIVE: We developed and validated a neighbourhood drivability index, capturing combined dimensions of the neighbourhood environment in the City of Toronto, and investigated its association with transportation choices (car, public transit or active transport), overall, by trip length, and combined for residential neighbourhood and workplace drivability. METHODS: We used exploratory factor analysis to derive distinct factors (clusters of one or more environmental characteristics) that reflect the degree of car dependency in each neighbourhood, drawing from candidate variables that capture density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, distance to transit, and demand management. Area-level factor scores were then combined into a single composite score, reflecting neighbourhood drivability. Negative binomial generalized estimating equations were used to test the association between driveability quintiles (Q) and primary travel mode (>50% of trips by car, public transit, or walking/cycling) in a population-based sample of 63,766 Toronto residents enrolled in the Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) wave 2016, adjusting for individual and household characteristics, and accounting for clustering of respondents within households. RESULTS: The drivability index consisted of three factors: Urban sprawl, pedestrian facilities and parking availability. Relative to those living in the least drivable neighbourhoods (Q1), those in high drivability areas (Q5) had a significantly higher rate of car travel (adjusted Risk Ratio (RR): 1.80, 95%CI: 1.77-1.88), and lower rate of public transit use (RR: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.85-0.94) and walking/cycling (RR: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.19-0.25). Associations were strongest for short trips (<3 km) (RR: 2.72, 95%CI: 2.48-2.92), and in analyses where both residential and workplace drivability was considered (RR for car use in high/high vs. low/low residential/workplace drivability: 2.18, 95%CI: 2.08-2.29). CONCLUSION: This novel neighbourhood drivability index predicted whether local residents drive or use active modes of transportation and can be used to investigate the association between drivability, physical activity, and chronic disease risk.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».