‘I just want safety’: understanding the needs of diverse residents to facilitate equitable active transportation planning in Durham Region, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active transportation users in high-income countries are more likely to be male, white, and of higher socioeconomic status. The purpose of this work was to learn about the needs, access, barriers, and priorities of equity-deserving groups to support engagement in active transportation. We conducted interviews with adults belonging to one or more of the following equity-deserving groups: Female (sex) or Women (gender), Racialized (non-Black), Black People, People with Disabilities, Born Outside of Canada, Older Adults, or Queer People. Four novel themes were identified in the data. Several privilege patterns related to cultural background, ability, affordability, and sex were identified. Communications were a clear opportunity for improvement to ensure accessible and inclusive active transportation. Several opportunities for education and training related to municipalities and law enforcement were highlighted. Finally, the pervasive car culture and law enforcement concerns were raised, particularly in the context of safety. It is clear from this work that adults from equity-deserving groups are faced with additional constraints to engaging in active transportation. A more collaborative approach with equity-deserving groups may be needed to ensure inclusive and accessible active transportation planning. Practical implications related to committees, media campaigns, and bikeshare programs are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".