Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35382581›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2022

The principles of pedestrian route choice.

Yunhe Tong, Nikolai W F Bode

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Yunhe TongDepartment of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TW, UK.
Nikolai W F BodeDepartment of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TW, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0958-5191

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pedestrian route choice, the process by which individuals decide on their walking path between two locations, is a fundamental problem across disciplines. Because this behaviour is investigated from different conceptual and methodological angles, and because it strongly depends on the environmental context, it is challenging to establish a systematic framework for research. Here, by reviewing previous work, we identify four principles for pedestrian route choice that are relevant across disciplines. First, 'information perception' deals with how pedestrians can perceive information selectively and purposely, given the limited available information. Second, 'information integration' considers how pedestrians subjectively integrate environmental spatial information into mental representations. Third, 'responding to information' is concerned with how pedestrians tend to be attracted and repelled by specific attributes individually and how this can lead to positive or negative feedback loops across many individuals. Fourth 'decision-making mechanisms' describe how pedestrians trade off the evidence provided by different attributes. How pedestrians perceive, integrate, respond to, and act upon information is not fixed but varies with the context. We give examples for each principle and explain how these principles shape pedestrian choice behaviours. We hope this contribution provides a systematic overview of the field and helps to spark inspiration among specialists.

Indexed as

PedestriansAccidents, TrafficHumansSafetyWalkingdecision-makinginterdisciplinary studiespedestrian behaviourroute choicetheoretical framework

Identifiers

PMID35382581
PMCPMC8984324

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.