“死胡同让你变胖”:购房者和土地开发商对社区步行、骑自行车、宜居、活力和健康的看法

G. McCormack, Autumn Nesdoly, Dalia Ghoneim, Tara-Leigh F. McHugh
{"title":"“死胡同让你变胖”:购房者和土地开发商对社区步行、骑自行车、宜居、活力和健康的看法","authors":"G. McCormack, Autumn Nesdoly, Dalia Ghoneim, Tara-Leigh F. McHugh","doi":"10.1080/23748834.2021.1979759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Academics use ‘walkability’, ‘healthy’, ‘bikeability’, ‘vibrancy’, and ‘livability’ to describe neighbourhood design that support health and wellbeing. These labels are communicated in the media and real estate and land development marketing materials, yet residents may not use these labels when describing their neighbourhoods. Our qualitative study explored recent homebuyers’ and residential land developers’ perceptions of these neighbourhood design labels. Twelve land developers (7 men; 5 women) and twelve homebuyers (7 men; 5 women) from three major cities (Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge) in Alberta, Canada, completed semi-structured telephone-interviews. Interview transcripts underwent content analysis. Land developers and homebuyers shared common perspectives of these labels, which had similarities with academic definitions. Participants described walkability as: (a) ease of movement, (b) contextual differences, and (c) connections; healthy as: (a) opportunities for activity, and (b) diversity; bikeability as: (a) supportive infrastructure, and (b) differing preferences; vibrancy as: (a) matches peoples’ values, and (b) supportive built features; and livability as: (a) all encompassing, and (b) safe and friendly. The features described were not mutually exclusive to any one-neighbourhood label. Our findings suggest that walkable and bikeable neighbourhoods are not necessarily vibrant or livable, nevertheless walkability, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability are qualities of a healthy neighbourhood.","PeriodicalId":72596,"journal":{"name":"Cities & health","volume":"46 1","pages":"765 - 776"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Cul-de-sacs make you fat’: homebuyer and land developer perceptions of neighbourhood walkability, bikeability, livability, vibrancy, and health\",\"authors\":\"G. McCormack, Autumn Nesdoly, Dalia Ghoneim, Tara-Leigh F. McHugh\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23748834.2021.1979759\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Academics use ‘walkability’, ‘healthy’, ‘bikeability’, ‘vibrancy’, and ‘livability’ to describe neighbourhood design that support health and wellbeing. These labels are communicated in the media and real estate and land development marketing materials, yet residents may not use these labels when describing their neighbourhoods. Our qualitative study explored recent homebuyers’ and residential land developers’ perceptions of these neighbourhood design labels. Twelve land developers (7 men; 5 women) and twelve homebuyers (7 men; 5 women) from three major cities (Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge) in Alberta, Canada, completed semi-structured telephone-interviews. Interview transcripts underwent content analysis. Land developers and homebuyers shared common perspectives of these labels, which had similarities with academic definitions. Participants described walkability as: (a) ease of movement, (b) contextual differences, and (c) connections; healthy as: (a) opportunities for activity, and (b) diversity; bikeability as: (a) supportive infrastructure, and (b) differing preferences; vibrancy as: (a) matches peoples’ values, and (b) supportive built features; and livability as: (a) all encompassing, and (b) safe and friendly. The features described were not mutually exclusive to any one-neighbourhood label. Our findings suggest that walkable and bikeable neighbourhoods are not necessarily vibrant or livable, nevertheless walkability, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability are qualities of a healthy neighbourhood.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72596,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cities & health\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"765 - 776\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cities & health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2021.1979759\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cities & health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2021.1979759","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

学者们使用“步行性”、“健康”、“骑自行车性”、“活力”和“宜居性”来描述支持健康和幸福的社区设计。这些标签在媒体和房地产和土地开发营销材料中传播,但居民在描述他们的社区时可能不会使用这些标签。我们的定性研究探讨了最近购房者和住宅用地开发商对这些社区设计标签的看法。土地开发商12人(男性7人;5名女性)和12名购房者(7名男性;来自加拿大阿尔伯塔省三个主要城市(卡尔加里、埃德蒙顿和莱斯布里奇)的5名女性完成了半结构化的电话采访。访谈记录进行了内容分析。土地开发商和购房者对这些标签有着共同的看法,这些标签与学术定义有相似之处。参与者将可步行性描述为:(a)行动方便,(b)环境差异,(c)连接;健康的是:(a)活动机会;(b)多样性;可骑行性:(a)支持性基础设施,(b)不同的偏好;活力:(a)符合人们的价值观,以及(b)支持性的建筑特征;宜居性是:(a)包罗万象,(b)安全友好。所描述的特征与任何单一邻域标签并不相互排斥。我们的研究结果表明,适合步行和骑自行车的社区不一定是充满活力或宜居的,然而,适合步行、适合骑自行车、充满活力和宜居是健康社区的品质。
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
‘Cul-de-sacs make you fat’: homebuyer and land developer perceptions of neighbourhood walkability, bikeability, livability, vibrancy, and health
ABSTRACT Academics use ‘walkability’, ‘healthy’, ‘bikeability’, ‘vibrancy’, and ‘livability’ to describe neighbourhood design that support health and wellbeing. These labels are communicated in the media and real estate and land development marketing materials, yet residents may not use these labels when describing their neighbourhoods. Our qualitative study explored recent homebuyers’ and residential land developers’ perceptions of these neighbourhood design labels. Twelve land developers (7 men; 5 women) and twelve homebuyers (7 men; 5 women) from three major cities (Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge) in Alberta, Canada, completed semi-structured telephone-interviews. Interview transcripts underwent content analysis. Land developers and homebuyers shared common perspectives of these labels, which had similarities with academic definitions. Participants described walkability as: (a) ease of movement, (b) contextual differences, and (c) connections; healthy as: (a) opportunities for activity, and (b) diversity; bikeability as: (a) supportive infrastructure, and (b) differing preferences; vibrancy as: (a) matches peoples’ values, and (b) supportive built features; and livability as: (a) all encompassing, and (b) safe and friendly. The features described were not mutually exclusive to any one-neighbourhood label. Our findings suggest that walkable and bikeable neighbourhoods are not necessarily vibrant or livable, nevertheless walkability, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability are qualities of a healthy neighbourhood.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Is your city planned for all citizens as they age? Selecting the indicators to measure neighbourhoods’ age-friendliness in the urban planning field Time to treat the climate and nature crisis as one indivisible global health emergency Towards climate change resilience and informal workers’ health in Zimbabwe: an action-research case study Examining discrimination in home improvement financing (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 2012–2016) and neighborhood health in the United States Research for city practice
×
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