谁能使用加拿大的自行车基础设施?社会公平分析

IF 7.1 1区 地球科学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Computers Environment and Urban Systems Pub Date : 2024-03-27 DOI:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2024.102109
Qiao Zhao , Meghan Winters , Trisalyn Nelson , Karen Laberee , Colin Ferster , Kevin Manaugh
{"title":"谁能使用加拿大的自行车基础设施?社会公平分析","authors":"Qiao Zhao ,&nbsp;Meghan Winters ,&nbsp;Trisalyn Nelson ,&nbsp;Karen Laberee ,&nbsp;Colin Ferster ,&nbsp;Kevin Manaugh","doi":"10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2024.102109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Canadian cities have made significant investments in cycling infrastructure to support uptake in active transportation. Who has spatial access to supportive infrastructure is an important equity question: lack of access to safe infrastructure for cycling may limit who has an option to use a bicycle to meet their transportation needs (to access employment, educational, social, or other essential services) as well as who may achieve the physical and mental health benefits possible through physical activity. Our aim is to measure spatial access to cycling infrastructure in Canadian cities, and to provide a broad, national understanding of inequitable access to cycling infrastructure for equity-deserving populations (children, seniors, recent immigrants, visible minorities, and people with low incomes). Accordingly, we used a national dataset of cycling infrastructure (Can-BICS), which summarizes the quantity of cycling infrastructure for all dissemination areas in Canada, and 2016 Census data to estimate associations between area-level sociodemographic characteristics and access to cycling infrastructure. In unadjusted associations, equity-deserving groups (i.e., recent immigrants and people with low incomes) had better access to cycling infrastructure. Pearson coefficients highlighted variations in the equity of cycling infrastructure across cities. Overall, access was more equitable across equity-deserving groups in large cities, compared to mid-sized and small cities. After adjusting for covariates related to urban form and mode share, access to cycling infrastructure was higher in areas with more seniors, more recent immigrants, more visible minorities, and more people with low incomes, but lower in areas with more children. More importantly, there are still a substantial number of people from equity-deserving groups living in areas with very low levels of cycling infrastructure. For example, ∼ 1.5 million children under the age of 14 (31% of children), 1.5 million older adults (31%), 1.4 million visible minorities, and 0.5 million people with low income (20%) live in dissemination areas with the lowest level of cycling infrastructure. These results highlight the need to understand which populations stand to gain by cycling infrastructure investments and which populations are being left behind. This methodology represents a useful tool for information transport policy initiatives to advance bicycle equity at a national scale.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48241,"journal":{"name":"Computers Environment and Urban Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198971524000383/pdfft?md5=b1ea9f354d63f16bdaed6e34fce13b0e&pid=1-s2.0-S0198971524000383-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who has access to cycling infrastructure in Canada? A social equity analysis\",\"authors\":\"Qiao Zhao ,&nbsp;Meghan Winters ,&nbsp;Trisalyn Nelson ,&nbsp;Karen Laberee ,&nbsp;Colin Ferster ,&nbsp;Kevin Manaugh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2024.102109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Canadian cities have made significant investments in cycling infrastructure to support uptake in active transportation. Who has spatial access to supportive infrastructure is an important equity question: lack of access to safe infrastructure for cycling may limit who has an option to use a bicycle to meet their transportation needs (to access employment, educational, social, or other essential services) as well as who may achieve the physical and mental health benefits possible through physical activity. Our aim is to measure spatial access to cycling infrastructure in Canadian cities, and to provide a broad, national understanding of inequitable access to cycling infrastructure for equity-deserving populations (children, seniors, recent immigrants, visible minorities, and people with low incomes). Accordingly, we used a national dataset of cycling infrastructure (Can-BICS), which summarizes the quantity of cycling infrastructure for all dissemination areas in Canada, and 2016 Census data to estimate associations between area-level sociodemographic characteristics and access to cycling infrastructure. In unadjusted associations, equity-deserving groups (i.e., recent immigrants and people with low incomes) had better access to cycling infrastructure. Pearson coefficients highlighted variations in the equity of cycling infrastructure across cities. Overall, access was more equitable across equity-deserving groups in large cities, compared to mid-sized and small cities. After adjusting for covariates related to urban form and mode share, access to cycling infrastructure was higher in areas with more seniors, more recent immigrants, more visible minorities, and more people with low incomes, but lower in areas with more children. More importantly, there are still a substantial number of people from equity-deserving groups living in areas with very low levels of cycling infrastructure. For example, ∼ 1.5 million children under the age of 14 (31% of children), 1.5 million older adults (31%), 1.4 million visible minorities, and 0.5 million people with low income (20%) live in dissemination areas with the lowest level of cycling infrastructure. These results highlight the need to understand which populations stand to gain by cycling infrastructure investments and which populations are being left behind. This methodology represents a useful tool for information transport policy initiatives to advance bicycle equity at a national scale.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers Environment and Urban Systems\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198971524000383/pdfft?md5=b1ea9f354d63f16bdaed6e34fce13b0e&pid=1-s2.0-S0198971524000383-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers Environment and Urban Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198971524000383\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers Environment and Urban Systems","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198971524000383","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

加拿大城市对自行车基础设施进行了大量投资,以支持积极交通的普及。谁能在空间上使用支持性基础设施是一个重要的公平问题:缺乏安全的自行车基础设施可能会限制哪些人可以选择使用自行车来满足他们的交通需求(获得就业、教育、社会或其他基本服务),以及哪些人可以通过体育锻炼获得身心健康的益处。我们的目标是测量加拿大城市中自行车基础设施的空间使用情况,并在全国范围内广泛了解需要公平的人群(儿童、老年人、新移民、有色人种和低收入人群)使用自行车基础设施的不公平情况。因此,我们使用全国自行车基础设施数据集(Can-BICS)(该数据集汇总了加拿大所有传播地区的自行车基础设施数量)和 2016 年人口普查数据来估算地区级社会人口特征与自行车基础设施使用权之间的关联。在未经调整的关联中,应享有公平的群体(即新移民和低收入人群)更容易使用自行车基础设施。皮尔逊系数凸显了不同城市在自行车基础设施公平性方面的差异。总体而言,在大城市,与中小城市相比,为公平服务的群体能更公平地使用自行车基础设施。在调整了与城市形态和模式共享相关的协变量后,在老年人较多、新移民较多、有色人种较多、低收入人群较多的地区,自行车基础设施的使用率较高,但在儿童较多的地区则较低。更重要的是,在自行车基础设施水平非常低的地区,仍有大量需要公平的群体居住在那里。例如,有 150 万 14 岁以下的儿童(占儿童总数的 31%)、150 万老年人(占 31%)、140 万有色人种和 50 万低收入人群(占 20%)生活在自行车基础设施水平最低的传播地区。这些结果突出表明,有必要了解哪些人群可以从自行车基础设施投资中获益,哪些人群被抛在后面。这种方法是在全国范围内推进自行车公平的信息交通政策倡议的有用工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Who has access to cycling infrastructure in Canada? A social equity analysis

Canadian cities have made significant investments in cycling infrastructure to support uptake in active transportation. Who has spatial access to supportive infrastructure is an important equity question: lack of access to safe infrastructure for cycling may limit who has an option to use a bicycle to meet their transportation needs (to access employment, educational, social, or other essential services) as well as who may achieve the physical and mental health benefits possible through physical activity. Our aim is to measure spatial access to cycling infrastructure in Canadian cities, and to provide a broad, national understanding of inequitable access to cycling infrastructure for equity-deserving populations (children, seniors, recent immigrants, visible minorities, and people with low incomes). Accordingly, we used a national dataset of cycling infrastructure (Can-BICS), which summarizes the quantity of cycling infrastructure for all dissemination areas in Canada, and 2016 Census data to estimate associations between area-level sociodemographic characteristics and access to cycling infrastructure. In unadjusted associations, equity-deserving groups (i.e., recent immigrants and people with low incomes) had better access to cycling infrastructure. Pearson coefficients highlighted variations in the equity of cycling infrastructure across cities. Overall, access was more equitable across equity-deserving groups in large cities, compared to mid-sized and small cities. After adjusting for covariates related to urban form and mode share, access to cycling infrastructure was higher in areas with more seniors, more recent immigrants, more visible minorities, and more people with low incomes, but lower in areas with more children. More importantly, there are still a substantial number of people from equity-deserving groups living in areas with very low levels of cycling infrastructure. For example, ∼ 1.5 million children under the age of 14 (31% of children), 1.5 million older adults (31%), 1.4 million visible minorities, and 0.5 million people with low income (20%) live in dissemination areas with the lowest level of cycling infrastructure. These results highlight the need to understand which populations stand to gain by cycling infrastructure investments and which populations are being left behind. This methodology represents a useful tool for information transport policy initiatives to advance bicycle equity at a national scale.

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
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
111
审稿时长
32 days
期刊介绍: Computers, Environment and Urban Systemsis an interdisciplinary journal publishing cutting-edge and innovative computer-based research on environmental and urban systems, that privileges the geospatial perspective. The journal welcomes original high quality scholarship of a theoretical, applied or technological nature, and provides a stimulating presentation of perspectives, research developments, overviews of important new technologies and uses of major computational, information-based, and visualization innovations. Applied and theoretical contributions demonstrate the scope of computer-based analysis fostering a better understanding of environmental and urban systems, their spatial scope and their dynamics.
期刊最新文献
Spatiotemporal dynamics of ethnoracial diversity and segregation in Los Angeles County: Insights from mobile phone data Machine-based understanding of noise perception in urban environments using mobility-based sensing data Inclusive accessibility: Analyzing socio-economic disparities in perceived accessibility A graph-based modelling approach for the representation and analysis of urban conflicts Satisfying transport needs with low carbon emissions: Exploring individual, social, and built environmental factors
×
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