ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Research on Risk and Resilience Evaluation of Urban Underground Public Space.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Autonomous Localization Vest System Based on Advanced Adaptive PDR with Binocular Vision Assistance.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Are the epidemic prevention facilities effective? How cities should choose epidemic prevention facilities: Taking Wuhan as an example.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
High urban density, land scarcity, rapid population growth, and traffic congestion have restricted urban development. In response, selected multiple functions have increasingly been integrated into the underground public space (UPS) to maximize the 3D utilization of precious urban space. The accelerated intensity of UPS use has alerted safety concerns. UPS with enclosed and confined natures, complex building structures, locations usually in cramped areas, and limited emergency exits are potentially more prone to heavy casualties and losses in natural or human-made disasters. As research on UPS safety is limited and focused on single risks, we attempted to fill the knowledge gap by developing an integrated risk analysis of UPS to understand risk resilience and improve risk management. From the perspective of the UPS system, four latent factors were identified: natural environment, economic environment, facilities and equipment, and physical structure. Seventeen resilience indicators subsumed under the factors were selected based on resilience concepts. A questionnaire was designed to gather opinions on the relative importance rating of the resilience indicators. SPSS and AMOS software were enlisted to build a structural equation model (SEM), validate the data and model, and calculate the path coefficients and index weights to test four hypotheses. The SEM model results were employed to develop a holistic resilience enhancement strategy under a four-phase framework: before, during, after, and long-term, and under four latent factors. The resilience enhancements can optimize UPS disaster prevention, rescue and evacuation, mitigation, and response management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.