点击排行
 
正文
全文下载次数:21
2018年第6期   DOI:10.22217/upi.2016.485
基于通学出行的建成环境研究综述
A Review of Built Environment Research Based on Children’s School Travel Behavior

王侠 焦健

Wang Xia, Jiao Jian

关键词:建成环境;通学出行;研究综述

Keywords:Built Environment; School Travel Behavior; Review

摘要:

城市蔓延以及“以车为本”的城市建设模式与场所设计,使得儿童通学出行距离加大,私家车通学出行比率不断增加,不仅增加了城市交通压力,也影响了儿童体力活动以及家庭生活品质等。国外在1980年代开始研究通学出行与建成环境之间的影响关系,国内近年开始关注并展开相关研究。本文梳理了目前基于通学出行的建成环境研究成果,以期为未来研究提供研究基础。首先,社会生态模型可以更好地解释建成环境与通学出行的相互影响关系;其次,影响通学出行的建成环境研究空间单元是社区尺度的,建成环境因子测度可以分为主观感知与客观要素两方面;然后,结合我国规划体系,对影响通学出行的建成环境影响因子从土地、交通、设计、学校四方面进行了梳理;最后介绍了该研究的应用。

Abstract:

Children’s school travel behavior from walking to private cars has not only increased urban traffic pressure, but also lead to childhood obesity and individual independence and other issues. The studies of children’s school travel behavior and its relationship with built environment began in 1980s abroad; however, it was not until most recently that relevant research has attracted attention in China. This paper reviews the literature of built environment based on children’s school travel behavior so as to provide a reference as well as a foundation for future research. Main conclusions of this paper are as follows. Firstly, social ecology model could offer better explanations about the interactions between built environment and school travel behavior. Secondly, built environment is often measured at the community level, and environment factors influencing the decisions on school travel behavior consist of two aspects, i.e., objective aspect and subjective (perceived) aspect. Thirdly, this current research classifies various factors influencing the built environment into four categories that land use, transportation, design and school. Lastly, the application of this research is introduced.

版权信息:
基金项目:国家自然科学基金资助项目(51508439)
作者简介:

王侠(通信作者),博士研究生,西安建筑科技大学建筑学院,副教授。350021859@qq.com
焦健,同济大学建筑与城市规划学院,博士研究生

译者简介:

参考文献:
  • [1] KLESGES R C, ECK L H, HANSON C L, et al. Effects of obesity, social interactions, and physical environment on physical activity in preschoolers[J]. Health Psychology, 1990, 9(4): 435-449.
    [2] 韩娟, 程国柱, 李洪强. 小学生上下学出行特征分析与管理策略[J]. 城市交通, 2011(2): 74-79.
    [3] 王侠, 陈晓键, 焦健. 基于家庭出行的城市小学可达性分析研究——以西安市为例[J]. 城市规划, 2015(12): 64-72.
    [4] 张纯, 郑童, 吕斌. 北京流动儿童就学的校车线路研究——基于网络法的分析及校车设施布局建议[J]. 规划师, 2012(5): 101-105.
    [5] 何玲玲, 林琳. 学校周边建成环境对学龄儿童上下学交通方式的影响——以上海市为例[J]. 上海城市规划, 2017(3): 30-36.
    [6] HANDY S, BOARNET M G, EWING R, et al. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning[J]. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2002, 23(2): 64-73.
    [7] CERVERO R, KOCKELMAN K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design[J]. Transportation Research Part D Transport & Environment, 1997, 2(3): 199-219.
    [8] EWING R, CERVERO R. Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2010, 76(3): 265-294.
    [9] MCMILLAN T E. Urban form and a child’s trip to school: the current literature and a framework for future research[J].Journal of Planning Literature, 2005, 4(19): 440-456.
    [10] PANTER J R, JONES A P, SLUIJS E M V. Environmental determinants of active travel in youth: a review and framework for future research[J]. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity, 2008, 5(1): 1-14.
    [11] BROBERG A, SARJALA S. School travel mode choice and the characteristics of the urban built environment: the case of Helsinki, Finland[J]. Transport Policy, 2015, 37: 1-10.
    [12] MITRA R. Independent mobility and mode choice for school transportation: a review and framework for future research[J]. Transport Reviews, 2013, 33(1): 21-43.
    [13] MITRA R, BULIUNG R N, ROORDA M J. Built environment and school travel mode choice in Toronto, Canada[J]. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2010, 2156(-1): 10-1443.
    [14] PANTER J R, JONES A P, SLUIJS E M F V, et al. Neighborhood, route, and school environments and children’s active commuting[J]. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2010, 38(3): 268-278.
    [15] MITRA R, BULIUNG R N. Built environment correlates of active school transportation: neighborhood and the modifiable areal unit problem [J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2012, 20(1): 51-61.
    [16] MCGINN A P, EVENSON K R, HERRING A H, et al. The relationship between leisure, walking, and transportation activity with the natural environment[J]. Health & Place, 2007, 13(3): 588-602.
    [17] MA L, DILL J, MOHR C. The objective versus the perceived environment: what matters for bicycling? [J]. Transportation, 2014, 41(6): 1135-1152.
    [18] 曹新宇. 社区建成环境和交通行为研究回顾与展望:以美国为鉴[J]. 国际城市规划, 2015(4): 46-52.
    [19] DING D, SALLIS J F, KERR J, et al. Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth: a review[J]. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2011, 41(4): 442-455.
    [20] PUCHER J, BUEHLER R. Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany[J]. Transport Reviews, 2008, 28(4): 495-528.
    [21] SCHLOSSBERG M, GREENE J, PHILLIPS P P, et al. School trips: effects of urban form and distance on travel mode[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2006, 72(3): 337-346.
    [22] EWING R. Travel and the built environment: a synthesis[J]. Transportation Research Record, 2001, 1780(1): 265-294.
    [23] KERR J, ROSENBERG D, SALLIS J F, et al. Active commuting to school: associations with environment and parental concerns[J]. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2006, 38(4): 787-794. [24] REILLY M, LANDIS J. The influence of built-form and land use on mode choice evidence from the 1996 bay area travel survey[R]. University of California Transportation Center Working Papers, 2003.
    [25] CERVERO R. Mixed land-uses and commuting: evidence from the American housing survey[J]. Transportation Research A, 2008, 5(30): 361-377.
    [26] MCDONALD N C. Travel and the social environment: evidence from alameda county, california[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transportand Environment, 2007, 12(1): 53-63.
    [27] MCMILLAN T E. The relative influence of urban form on a child’s travel mode to school[J]. Transportation Research Part A Policy & Practice, 2007, 41(1): 69-79.
    [28] GILES-CORTI B, WOOD G, PIKORA T, et.al. School site and the potential to walk to school: the impact of street connective and traffic exposure in school neighborhoods[J]. Health & Place, 2011, 17(2): 545-550.
    [29] MACKETT R L. Increasing car dependency of children: should we be worried? [J]. Proceedings of the ICE - Municipal Engineer, 2002, 151(1): 29-38.
    [30] 林家祯, 张孝德. 建成环境影响儿童通学方式与运具选择之研究:台北市文山区国小儿童之实证分析[J]. 运输计划季刊, 2008, 37(3): 331-362.
    [31] FORSYTH A, KRIZEK K J. Promoting walking and bicycling: assessing the evidence to assist planners[J]. Built Environment, 2010, 36(4): 429-446.
    [32] FULTON J E, SHISLER J L, YORE M M, et al. Active transportation to school: findings from a national survey[J]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and sport, 2005, 76(3): 352 -357.
    [33] MARLON G B, KRISTEN D, CRAIG A, et al. California’s Safe Routes to School program: impacts on walking, bicycling, and pedestrian safety[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2005, 71(3): 301-317.
    [34] HANDY S, CAO X, Mokhtarian P. Neighborhood design and children’s outdoor play: evidence from Northern California[J]. Child Youth Environ 2008, 18(2): 160-179.
    [35] FOLTETE J C, PIOMBINI A. Urban layout, landscape features and pedestrian usage[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007, 81(3): 225-234.
    [36] FRANK L, KERR J, CHAPMAN J, et al. Urban form relationships with walk trip frequency and distance among youth[J]. American Journal of Health Promotion, 2006, 21(4 Suppl): 305-311.
    [37] EWING R, SCHROEER W, GREENE W. School location and student travel: analysis of factors affecting mode choice[J]. Transportation Research Board: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2004: 55-63.
    [38] BRAZA M, SHOEMAKER W, SEELEY A. Neighbourhood design and rates of walking and biking to elementary schools in 34 California communities[J]. American Journal of Health Promotion, 2004, 19(2): 128-136.
    [39] MCDONALD NC. Children’s mode choice for the school trip: the role of distance and school location in walking to school[J]. Transportation, 2008, 35(1): 23-35.
    [40] MCDONALD N C. School siting: contested visions of the community school[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2010, 76(2): 184-199.
    [41] MCDONALD N C, BARTH P H, STEINER R L. Assessing the distribution of safe routes to school program funds, 2005-2012 [J]. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2013, 45(4): 401-406.
    [42] CDC: Centers for Disease Control. Healthy Places [EB/OL]. [2016-09-06].
    https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/default.htm.
    [43] STAUNTON C E, HUBSMITH D, KALLINS W. Promoting safe walking and biking to school: the Marin County success story[J]. American Journal of Public Health, 2003, 93(9): 1431.
    [44] BOARNET M G, DAY K, ANDERSON C, et al. California’s safe routes to school program: impacts on walking, bicycling, and pedestrian safety[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2005, 71(3): 301-317.
    [45] MCDONALD N C, ALBORG A E. Why parents drive children to school: implications for safe routes to school programs[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2009, 75(3): 331-342.

《国际城市规划》编辑部    北京市车公庄西路10号东楼E305/320    100037
邮箱:upi@vip.163.com  电话:010-58323806  传真:010-58323825
京ICP备13011701号-6  京公网安备11010802014223

3570843