ArticleScientific reports2024
Comprehensive walkability assessment of urban pedestrian environments using big data and deep learning techniques.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing elderly walkability to urban parks using mobility analysis and multi-source data: a case study of central Fuzhou, China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A study on the coupling mechanism between the urban environment and depression perception based on deep learning and street view image.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A novel framework integrating GeoAI and human perceptions to estimate walkability in Wuhan, China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A BIM-GIS Framework Integrated with CCTV Analytics for Urban Walkability Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Social media interaction and built environment effects on urban walking experience: A machine learning analysis of Shanghai Citywalk.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assessing street walkability is a critical agenda in urban planning and multidisciplinary research, as it facilitates public health, community cohesion, and urban sustainability. Existing evaluation systems primarily focus on objective measurements, often neglecting subjective assessments and the diverse walking needs influenced by different urban spatial elements. This study addresses these gaps by constructing a comprehensive evaluation framework that integrates both subjective and objective dimensions, combining three neighbourhood indicators: Macro-Scale Index, Micro-Scale Index, and Street Walking Preferences Index. A normalization weighting method synthesizes these indicators into a comprehensive index. We applied this framework to assess the street environment within Beijing's Fifth Ring Road. The empirical results demonstrate that: (1) The framework reliably reflects the distribution of walkability. (2) The three indicators show both similarities and differences, underscoring the need to consider the distinct roles of community and street-level elements and the interaction between subjective and objective dimensions. (3) In high-density cities with ring-road development patterns, the Macro-Scale Index closely aligns with the Comprehensive Index, demonstrating its accuracy in reflecting walkability. The proposed framework and findings offer new insights for street walkability research and theoretical support for developing more inclusive, sustainable and walkable cities.
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.