Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27846889›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health geographics2016

Using expert decision-making to establish indicators of urban friendliness for walking environments: a multidisciplinary assessment.

Yen-Cheng Chiang, Han-Yu Lei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health geographics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yen-Cheng ChiangDepartment of Landscape Architecture, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, 60004, Taiwan, ROC. ycchiang@mail.ncyu.edu.tw.
Han-Yu LeiDepartment of Horticulture, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, 60004, Taiwan, ROC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous studies have suggested that friendly walking environments positively affect physical activity and health. Creating friendly walking environments in urban areas is a complex and wide-ranging topic, and no study has yet established a set of assessment indicators by drawing on the expertise of various disciplines. This study uses a multiple-criteria decision-making technique to elucidate the environmental factors that affect the friendliness of the walking environment.

methodsWe conducted a two-phase expert questionnaire survey. Experts from the government sector, as well as the academic disciplines of urban planning, transportation, architecture, and landscape design, were recruited to establish a set of walking environment indicators; the degrees of importance assigned to these indicators by the experts were subsequently compared. In phase 1, the fuzzy Delphi method was used by 20 experts, whose responses were used to identify four dimensions and 22 indicators. In phase 2, an analytical network process approach was performed by 16 experts to determine the weights of the dimensions and indicators.

resultsThe results revealed that all of the experts ranked the four dimensions in the order of safety > facilities > aesthetics > land use mix. Of the 22 indicators, land use-diversity, land use-access, sidewalk width, sidewalk continuity, and cleanliness were considered the most important.

conclusionsThe results provide a reference for the management of walking environments by promoting pedestrian-oriented environments and public health.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEnvironment DesignExpert TestimonyUrban PopulationWalkingDelphi TechniqueFuzzy LogicHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationSurveys and QuestionnairesAnalytic network process (ANP)Fuzzy Delphi method (FDM)Multiple-criteria decision-makingPublic health

Identifiers

PMID27846889
PMCPMC5111263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.