Meteorological gaps in audits of pedestrian environments: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Weather and season are determinants of physical activity. Therefore, it is important to ensure built environments are designed to mitigate negative impacts of weather and season on pedestrians to prevent these losses. This scoping review aims to identify built environment audits of pedestrian environments developed for use during a specific weather condition or season. Secondly, this review aims to investigate gaps in the inclusion of relevant weather mitigating built environment features in pedestrian environment audit tools. Methods Following a standard protocol, a systematic search was executed in CINAHL, Medline and Web of Science to identify built environment audit tools of pedestrian spaces. These databases were chosen since they are well-known to comprehensively cover health as well as multi-disciplinary research publications relevant to health. Studies were screened, and data were extracted from selected documents by two independent reviewers (e.g., psychometric properties and audit items included). Audit items were screened for the inclusion of weather mitigating built environment features, and the tool’s capacity to measure temperature, precipitation, seasonal and sustainability impacts on pedestrians was calculated. Results The search returned 2823 documents. After screening and full text review, 27 articles were included. No tool was found that was developed specifically for use during a specific weather condition or season. Additionally, gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating items were found for all review dimensions (thermal comfort, precipitation, seasonal, and sustainability items). Poorly covered items were: (1) thermal comfort related (arctic entry presence, materials, textures, and colours of buildings, roads, sidewalk and furniture, and green design features); (2) precipitation related (drain presence, ditch presence, hazards, and snow removal features); (3) seasonal features (amenities, pedestrian scale lighting, and winter destinations and aesthetics); and (4) sustainability features (electric vehicle charging stations, renewable energy, car share, and bike share facilities). Conclusions Current built environment audit tools do not adequately include weather / season mitigating items. This is a limitation as it is important to investigate if the inclusion of these items in pedestrian spaces can promote physical activity during adverse weather conditions. Because climate change is causing increased extreme weather events, a need exists for the development of a new built environment audit tool that includes relevant weather mitigating features.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,209 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,027 | 0,028 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».