| Literature DB >> 36148332 |
Bingjie Yu1, Xu Cui1, Runze Liu1, Pinyang Luo1, Fangzhou Tian1, Tian Yang1.
Abstract
Transit-oriented development (TOD) has been regarded as an effective way to improve urban vibrancy and facilitate affordable, equitable, and livable communities in metro station areas (MSAs). Previous studies placed great attention on the interplay between the MSA-level built environment and overall human activities while neglecting the heterogeneity among different age groups. To address this gap, we leverage the mobile phone signaling data to quantify the spatio-temporal distribution of the MSA-level human activities among different age groups as measured by the vibrancy index (VI). Furthermore, we investigate the impact of the MSA-level built environment on the VI and its intergenerational differences by employing multiple linear regressions based on multi-sourced data. To this end, Chengdu-a TOD-thriving megacity in China-is chosen as a case study. The results indicate that: (1) Residential and bus stop density are positively associated with the VI. And the magnitudes of the correlation coefficients are similar among different age groups. (2) Distance to CBD is negatively associated with the VI of teenagers (12-18 years), middle-aged adults (40-59 years), and older adults (above 60 years) but unrelated to the VI of young adults (19-39 years). (3) Employment density is positively associated with the VI of young and middle-aged adults but insignificantly associated with the VI of teenagers and older adults. (4) The correlations between the floor area ratio and the VI are positive for all age groups. As age increases, the significance of such correlations becomes more pronounced. (5) Streetscape greenery shows a more significant positive correlation with the VI of teenagers and older adults as compared to those of young and middle-aged adults. (6) Significant negative correlations exist between housing price and the VI of different age groups. The findings can inform the development and design of vibrant TOD communities.Entities:
Keywords: TOD; built environment; intergenerational differences; metro; mobile phone signaling data; urban vibrancy
Year: 2022 PMID: 36148332 PMCID: PMC9485636 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.994835
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1The study area and metro station area.
Figure 2The heat map of population distribution in Chengdu.
Figure 3The identification and distribution of residential density in Chengdu based on mobile phone data.
Figure 4Street view point distribution in MSA and identification of green view rate.
Descriptive statistics of independent variables.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Density | Residential density (104/km2) | 2.87 | 4.00 | 0.10 | 12.83 |
| Employment density (104/km2) | 4.67 | 3.51 | 0.11 | 29.75 | |
| FAR (floor area ratio) | 0.61 | 1.22 | 0.03 | 2.93 | |
| Diversity | Land-use mix | 0.08 | 0.76 | 0.27 | 0.89 |
| Design | Road network integration index | 0.19 | 0.64 | 0.08 | 1.23 |
| Green view index (%) | 0.05 | 0.19 | 0.05 | 0.32 | |
| Distance to transit | Bus stop density (1/km2) | 4.74 | 8.51 | 0.57 | 27.36 |
| Destination accessibility | Distance to CBD (km) | 6.79 | 9.52 | 0.00 | 28.70 |
| Park density (1/km2) | 5.50 | 3.08 | 0.00 | 39.13 | |
| Shopping facility density (1/km2) | 491.56 | 335.32 | 0.00 | 4,258.33 | |
| Economic attribute | Housing price (104 yuan/m2) | 0.49 | 1.56 | 0.38 | 3.54 |
Figure 5Methodological framework.
Figure 6The distribution of TOD vibrancy for each age group (teenagers, young adults, middle-aged adults, and older adults).
Figure 7Pair-wise correlation analysis result.
Results of the multiple linear regression model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| CONSTANT | 9.916 | 0.47 | 4.499 | 1.066 | 9.342 | 0.521 | 8.724 | 0.426 | 7.756 | 0.481 |
| Residential density | 0.123 | 0.019 | 0.143 | 0.044 | 0.137 | 0.022 | 0.083 | 0.018 | 0.121 | 0.02 |
| Employment density | 0.044 | 0.013 | 0.033 | 0.029 | 0.065 | 0.014 | 0.023 | 0.011 | −0.007 | 0.013 |
| Distance to CBD | −0.017 | 0.007 | −0.039 | 0.016 | −0.011 | 0.008 | −0.024 | 0.006 | −0.034 | 0.007 |
| FAR | 0.187 | 0.089 | 0.147 | 0.201 | 0.121 | 0.098 | 0.241 | 0.08 | 0.332 | 0.091 |
| Housing price | −0.466 | 0.079 | −1.073 | 0.18 | −0.48 | 0.088 | −0.393 | 0.072 | −0.495 | 0.081 |
| Bus stop density | 0.031 | 0.01 | 0.045 | 0.023 | 0.028 | 0.011 | 0.034 | 0.009 | 0.040 | 0.01 |
| Shopping facility density | −0.001 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.003 | −0.002 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Land-use mix | −0.163 | 0.534 | −0.478 | 1.213 | −0.112 | 0.593 | −0.494 | 0.484 | 0.249 | 0.547 |
| Road network integration index | 0.111 | 0.212 | 0.926 | 0.482 | 0.149 | 0.236 | 0.15 | 0.192 | 0.046 | 0.217 |
| Park density | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.011 | 0.018 | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.008 | 0.007 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Green view index | 1.459 | 0.85 | 5.563 | 1.931 | 1.098 | 0.944 | 1.592 | 0.771 | 2.301 | 0.871 |
|
| ||||||||||
| 40.416 | 18.588 | 33.452 | 40.930 | 52.184 | ||||||
| 0.755 | 0.587 | 0.719 | 0.758 | 0.799 | ||||||
| Number of observations | 156 | 156 | 156 | 156 | 156 | |||||
| Akaike crit. (AIC) | 195.696 | 451.599 | 228.268 | 165.020 | 203.085 | |||||
p < 0.01.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.1.