ArticleBMC public health2026
Community voices to understand and promote liveability in the Green Corridor urban transformation project in Bogotá, Colombia.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLatin American cities are transforming in response to climate change, yet residents' liveability experiences before these transformations begin are rarely documented. In Bogotá, the 2022-2035 Land Use Master Plan's Green Corridors aim to promote sustainable mobility and integrate green infrastructure in urban design, with the first corridor planned along 7th Street. This study provides a baseline evaluation of liveability conditions along 7th Street before construction, aiming to (i) identify perceptions of social and built environment factors that facilitate or hinder liveability and (ii) document potential solutions to identified barriers.
methodsWe employed a multi-method approach. A cross-sectional household survey described residents' sociodemographic profile and perceptions of the Green Corridor's expected effects on liveability. The Our Voice citizen science method engaged residents and commuters in identifying perceived facilitators and barriers, proposing potential solutions, and exchanging knowledge with policymakers.
resultsResidents' most expected improvements included increased vegetation, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, and public space upgrades, while the most anticipated deteriorations included difficulty in car use and worsening public transport operations. Through the Our Voice method, 66 citizen scientists captured 1123 photo-narratives, documenting access to essential services, green areas, and urban trees as the most mentioned facilitators, while poor pedestrian infrastructure and safety concerns as the most mentioned barriers. Proposed solutions included infrastructure improvements, educational campaigns, and evidence-based policymaking. The process increased environmental awareness among citizen scientists and supported knowledge exchange with policymakers.
conclusionThis study underscores the importance of grounding climate mitigation and adaptation efforts in baseline assessments of urban residents' liveability experiences. Built environment factors were widely valued as facilitators, while social environment factors emerged as persistent barriers, a pattern that the Our Voice method deepened by revealing the conditions that underpin these perceptions. The participatory process generated practical solutions, deepened citizen scientists' awareness of their surroundings, and enabled meaningful engagement with policymakers. As cities pursue climate goals, these findings offer a foundation for understanding and evaluating the effects of a Green Corridor on residents' everyday liveability as the intervention unfolds.
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.