| Literature DB >> 34886066 |
Min Zhang1, Yufu Liu1, Yixiong Xiao1, Wenqi Sun1, Chen Zhang2, Yong Wang1, Yuqi Bai1.
Abstract
The concept of Healthy Cities, introduced by the World Health Organization, demonstrates the value of health for the whole urban system. As one of the most important components of urban systems, transportation plays an important role in Healthy Cities. Many transportation evaluation systems focus on factors such as road networks, parking spaces, transportation speed, accessibility, convenience, and commuting time, while the vulnerability and resilience of urban transportation are rarely evaluated. This study presents the preliminary progress in the evaluation of traffic vulnerability and resilience during precipitation events in 39 Chinese cities. Traffic congestion index data, derived from the Baidu Map Smart Transportation Platform, and rainfall data, derived from NASA's global precipitation measurement, are utilized. Traffic vulnerability index, traffic resilience index, and the corresponding quantitative methods are proposed, and the analysis results are presented. This study is of value in improving the understanding of urban traffic vulnerability and resilience, and in enabling the quantitative evaluation of them in urban health assessment and the Healthy Cities program.Entities:
Keywords: Healthy Cities; precipitation; traffic resilience; traffic vulnerability; urban health assessment; urban traffic
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34886066 PMCID: PMC8657233 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312342
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Special distribution of major cities in china.
Figure 2Statistical scatter plots and the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis plots of the rainfall intensities and traffic congestion indexes.
k value of the traffic vulnerability index and p value of each city.
| City | Vulnerability Index k |
| City | Vulnerability Index k |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Xuzhou | 0.0168 | 0.4035 |
| Shanghai | 0.0250 | 0.0665 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nantong | 0.0104 | 0.2566 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Zhengzhou | 0.0180 | 0.3479 | Wuxi | 0.0110 | 0.5536 |
| Xi’an | 0.0119 | 0.4312 | Jiaxing | 0.0126 | 0.1619 |
| Nanjing | 0.0085 | 0.1489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jinhua | 0.0106 | 0.2019 |
|
|
|
| Taizhou | 0.0043 | 0.2781 |
|
|
|
| Wenzhou | 0.0110 | 0.1246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chongqing | 0.0835 | 0.0524 | Quanzhou | 0.0388 | 0.1404 |
|
|
|
| Huizhou | 0.0045 | 0.5502 |
|
|
|
| Foshan | 0.0152 | 0.1044 |
| Taiyuan | 0.0062 | 0.8545 |
|
|
|
| Yantai | 0.0306 | 0.1570 |
|
|
|
| Jinan | 0.0577 | 0.1303 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cities that pass the salience test are in bold.
Characteristics of typical cities and their road network.
| Name | Pattern | Form | Network Density (km/km2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beijing |
| Blocks | 5.7 |
| Wuhan |
| multi-central cluster | 6.0 |
| Lanzhou |
| valley-shaped linear type | 4.2 |
| Chongqing |
| multi-central cluster | 6.7 |
| Guiyang |
| multi-central cluster, “S” type | 6.2 |
| Qingdao |
| multi-central cluster | 5.4 |
Network Density in table are quoted from road network density monitoring report of major cities in China (2020) [28].
Figure 3Recovery time of each city after precipitation.
Recovery time of each city after precipitation.
| City Name | Recovery Time (Hour) | City Name | Recovery Time (Hour) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shanghai | 1.250 | Hefei | 0.675 |
| Beijing | 0.450 | Huizhou | 0.643 |
| Shenzhen | 0.412 | Quanzhou | 0.611 |
| Guangzhou | 0.200 | Changzhou | 0.529 |
| Changsha | 0.804 | Guiyang | 0.500 |
| Zhengzhou | 0.633 | Jinhua | 0.486 |
| Nanjing | 0.511 | Yantai | 0.451 |
| Dongguan | 0.462 | Fuzhou | 0.440 |
| Suzhou | 0.444 | Taiyuan | 0.400 |
| Chengdu | 0.444 | Wuxi | 0.378 |
| Wuhan | 0.441 | Yangzhou | 0.367 |
| Qingdao | 0.359 | Taizhou | 0.357 |
| Ningbo | 0.333 | Zhuhai | 0.353 |
| Chongqing | 0.250 | Shaoxing | 0.333 |
| Xi’an | 0.233 | Haikou | 0.326 |
| Hangzhou | 0.083 | Wenzhou | 0.281 |
| Lanzhou | 0.938 | Foshan | 0.214 |
| Nanning | 0.848 | Jiaxing | 0.120 |
| Jinan | 0.731 | Nantong | 0.034 |
| Xuzhou | 0.682 |
Figure 4The diagram of comprehensive traffic evaluation results.