The right to walk in cities, a comparative review of Macau, Lisbon and Las Vegas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".