COVID 街道的原因和方法:对危机期间动机和方法研究的城市一级审查

IF 9.5 1区 工程技术 Q1 TRANSPORTATION Transport Reviews Pub Date : 2024-03-03 DOI:10.1080/01441647.2023.2295368
Lindsay Oluyede , Tabitha S. Combs , Carlos Felipe Pardo
{"title":"COVID 街道的原因和方法:对危机期间动机和方法研究的城市一级审查","authors":"Lindsay Oluyede ,&nbsp;Tabitha S. Combs ,&nbsp;Carlos Felipe Pardo","doi":"10.1080/01441647.2023.2295368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 1500 cities around the world created or expanded public spaces for walking, bicycling, recreation and outdoor commerce to accommodate requirements for physical distancing. These interventions often involved the reallocation of street space dedicated to cars to facilitate active mobility. While research on efforts to adapt street space during the pandemic is burgeoning, there has yet to be an in-depth analysis of the motivations behind these responses. Our international qualitative study conducted a thematic review of existing research on active mobility responses to understand them better. Specifically, our review considered why responses were chosen (four motivations: risk reduction, impact mitigation, demand accommodation and opportunity) and how they were implemented (four typologies: opportunism, crisis reaction, business-as-usual was also a crisis and agility). Opportunism was most common both as motivation and typology of approach. However, elements of the other motivations and approach typologies were critical for developing and implementing responses that more directly addressed community needs and concerns during the crisis. Our findings help inform the work of transportation professionals to make cities more resilient by building their capacity to respond quickly and equitably to future disruptions and ongoing crises.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48197,"journal":{"name":"Transport Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The why and how of COVID streets: a city-level review of research into motivations and approaches during a crisis\",\"authors\":\"Lindsay Oluyede ,&nbsp;Tabitha S. Combs ,&nbsp;Carlos Felipe Pardo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01441647.2023.2295368\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 1500 cities around the world created or expanded public spaces for walking, bicycling, recreation and outdoor commerce to accommodate requirements for physical distancing. These interventions often involved the reallocation of street space dedicated to cars to facilitate active mobility. While research on efforts to adapt street space during the pandemic is burgeoning, there has yet to be an in-depth analysis of the motivations behind these responses. Our international qualitative study conducted a thematic review of existing research on active mobility responses to understand them better. Specifically, our review considered why responses were chosen (four motivations: risk reduction, impact mitigation, demand accommodation and opportunity) and how they were implemented (four typologies: opportunism, crisis reaction, business-as-usual was also a crisis and agility). Opportunism was most common both as motivation and typology of approach. However, elements of the other motivations and approach typologies were critical for developing and implementing responses that more directly addressed community needs and concerns during the crisis. Our findings help inform the work of transportation professionals to make cities more resilient by building their capacity to respond quickly and equitably to future disruptions and ongoing crises.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transport Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transport Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S0144164724000023\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"TRANSPORTATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transport Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S0144164724000023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TRANSPORTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在 COVID-19 大流行之初,全球有 1500 多个城市为步行、骑自行车、娱乐和户外商业创造或扩大了公共空间,以满足对物理距离的要求。这些干预措施通常涉及重新分配专用于汽车的街道空间,以促进积极的流动性。尽管有关在大流行病期间调整街道空间的研究正在蓬勃发展,但对这些应对措施背后的动机还没有深入的分析。我们的国际定性研究对现有的积极交通应对措施研究进行了专题回顾,以更好地了解这些应对措施。具体来说,我们的审查考虑了选择应对措施的原因(四种动机:降低风险、减轻影响、满足需求和抓住机遇)以及如何实施(四种类型:机会主义、危机反应、一切照旧也是危机和灵活性)。机会主义是最常见的动机和方法类型。然而,其他动机和方法类型的要素对于制定和实施在危机期间更直接满足社区需求和关切的应对措施至关重要。我们的研究结果有助于为交通专业人员的工作提供参考,通过培养他们快速、公平地应对未来破坏和持续危机的能力,使城市更具复原力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The why and how of COVID streets: a city-level review of research into motivations and approaches during a crisis

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 1500 cities around the world created or expanded public spaces for walking, bicycling, recreation and outdoor commerce to accommodate requirements for physical distancing. These interventions often involved the reallocation of street space dedicated to cars to facilitate active mobility. While research on efforts to adapt street space during the pandemic is burgeoning, there has yet to be an in-depth analysis of the motivations behind these responses. Our international qualitative study conducted a thematic review of existing research on active mobility responses to understand them better. Specifically, our review considered why responses were chosen (four motivations: risk reduction, impact mitigation, demand accommodation and opportunity) and how they were implemented (four typologies: opportunism, crisis reaction, business-as-usual was also a crisis and agility). Opportunism was most common both as motivation and typology of approach. However, elements of the other motivations and approach typologies were critical for developing and implementing responses that more directly addressed community needs and concerns during the crisis. Our findings help inform the work of transportation professionals to make cities more resilient by building their capacity to respond quickly and equitably to future disruptions and ongoing crises.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transport Reviews
Transport Reviews TRANSPORTATION-
CiteScore
17.70
自引率
1.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Transport Reviews is an international journal that comprehensively covers all aspects of transportation. It offers authoritative and current research-based reviews on transportation-related topics, catering to a knowledgeable audience while also being accessible to a wide readership. Encouraging submissions from diverse disciplinary perspectives such as economics and engineering, as well as various subject areas like social issues and the environment, Transport Reviews welcomes contributions employing different methodological approaches, including modeling, qualitative methods, or mixed-methods. The reviews typically introduce new methodologies, analyses, innovative viewpoints, and original data, although they are not limited to research-based content.
期刊最新文献
Forecasting travel in urban America: the socio-technical life of an engineering modeling world Spatial factors associated with usage of different on-demand elements within mobility hubs: a systematic literature review Measuring transport-associated urban inequalities: Where are we and where do we go from here? Human factors affecting truck – vulnerable road user safety: a scoping review A survey on reinforcement learning-based control for signalized intersections with connected automated vehicles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1