You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
  • Review
  • Open Access

13 July 2021

The Hierarchy of Walking Needs and the COVID-19 Pandemic

and
1
Escuela de Arquitectura Temuco, Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad Mayor, Av. Alemania 281, Temuco 4780000, Chile
2
Universidad Católica del Maule, San Miguel 3605, Talca 3460000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Walking as a Mode of Transport: Interactions between the Environmental Conditions and Human Behaviour

Abstract

More than 150 cities around the world have expanded emergency cycling and walking infrastructure to increase their resilience in the face of the COVID 19 pandemic. This tendency toward walking has led it to becoming the predominant daily mode of transport that also contributes to significant changes in the relationships between the hierarchy of walking needs and walking behaviour. These changes need to be addressed in order to increase the resilience of walking environments in the face of such a pandemic. This study was designed as a theoretical and empirical literature review seeking to improve the walking behaviour in relation to the hierarchy of walking needs within the current context of COVID-19. Accordingly, the interrelationship between the main aspects relating to walking-in the context of the pandemic- and the different levels in the hierarchy of walking needs were discussed. Results are presented in five sections of “density, crowding and stress during walking”, “sense of comfort/discomfort and stress in regard to crowded spaces during walking experiences”, “crowded spaces as insecure public spaces and the contribution of the type of urban configuration”, “role of motivational/restorative factors during walking trips to reduce the overload of stress and improve mental health”, and “urban design interventions on arrangement of visual sequences during walking”.

1. Introduction

Resilience refers to a system’s ability to efficiently absorb shocks [1]. The recent pandemic of COVID-19 has influenced many aspects of our daily life. It has meant various changes to the physical and social arrangements of our cities in order to increase urban resilience in the face of this pandemic. In regard to urban transport, in many cities, the provision of public space and infrastructure for the development of active travel-including walking and cycling-has been adopted as the main approach to increase urban resilience in the face of this pandemic [1]. These active transport modes, especially walking, are the most sustainable modes of transport. More than 150 cities have expanded emergency cycling and walking infrastructures as of late April 2020 [2]. Many cities such as Auckland, Barcelona, Bogota, New York, Quito and Rome, have been aiming to improve city infrastructure to facilitate socially distanced walking and cycling and other cities such as Montreal, Oakland, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco and Vienna are trying to create slow/safe street networks that prioritize pedestrians and cyclists and limit car access [2]. For instance, re-timing traffic lights was adopted in Brussels to give more time for pedestrians and cyclists and avoid crowding at junctions [2].
Although, as of mid-2021, it is yet unclear the duration of this pandemic, it seems that this approach toward active travel, and especially walking, is, from a long-term point of view, due to the high expense invested in this area in many cities. Walking is the cheapest and most sustainable mode of transport. This tendency of policy makers as well as inhabitants toward walking, has led to it becoming the predominant mode of transport in daily trips for many people. In regard to the relationship between the walking behaviour of citizens and their walking needs, there are five levels of needs that are considered within the walking decision-making process. These needs progress from the most basic need, feasibility (related to personal limitations), to higher-order needs (related to urban landscape) that include accessibility, safety, comfort, and pleasure, respectively [3]. Within this hierarchical structure, an individual would not typically consider a higher-order need in his or her decision to walk if a more basic need was not already satisfied [3].
Due to the situation imposed by COVID-19, since people may choose more often to walk rather than use other modes of transport, the more basic needs of walking such as accessibility and safety may play a more substantial role in the decision to walk when compared with the situation before the pandemic. Consequently, the relationship between choosing to walk and the hierarchy of walking needs may also be changed substantially. Moreover, in addition to choosing to walk and walking behaviour, walkability is the other relevant term in regard to walking patterns in the relevant studies. The walkability of a neighbourhood generally refers to the extent to which that neighbourhood provides adequate conditions for walking [4] and previous studies have used different compositions of built environmental attributes to measure the walkability index [5,6,7,8,9]. The current situation with regard to COVID-19, meaning that more basic walking needs may play a more important role in the daily walking patterns of inhabitants, may also lead to the need to re-examine and re-define the walkability of our neighbourhoods.
These changes in the relationship between the hierarchy of walking needs and walking behaviour, due to the situation imposed by COVID-19 need to be addressed. A recognition of these changes should lead to the improvement of walkability as well as walking behaviour during and after COVID-19 which will ultimately contribute to increase the resiliency of walking environments in the face of such a pandemic. The question raised in this regard is how to improve walking behaviour in relation to different levels in the hierarchy of walking needs regarding the current situation imposed by COVID-19. The next section tries to answer this question through considering the interrelationships between the different aspects concerning walking-imposed by this pandemic- and different levels in the hierarchy of walking needs.

3. Conclusions

Through the current situation imposed by this pandemic, the relationship between patterns of walking behaviour with different levels in the hierarchy of walking has changed substantially. These changes need to be addressed. Recognition of these changes leads to the improvement of walkability as well as walking behaviour both during and outside of COVID-19, which will finally contribute to more resilient cities in terms of walking behaviour in the face of such a pandemic. This study was designed as a theoretical and empirical literature review seeking to improve the walking behaviour in relation to the hierarchy of walking needs within the current context of COVID-19. In this regard, three aspects were recognized as the basic aspects relevant to walking behaviour imposed by this pandemic. Next, the interrelationships between these aspects and different levels in the hierarchy of walking needs were considered and discussed in order to address the new requirements for improvements in walking behaviour in the situations imposed by this pandemic.
In regard to density as well as crowding, it was explained that contagion risk increases with crowding and not people density in public spaces. Moreover, respecting the impact of crowded spaces on the formation of stress, the two primary factors of perceived crowding and perceived control were introduced. Furthermore, the purpose of the walking trips—whether for transport or recreation—was also introduced as a factor that should be considered by future relevant studies.
Regarding the impact of sense of comfort—as one of the levels in the hierarchy of walking needs—upon stress and walking behaviour, it was shown that there is a high convergence between the factors: expected number of interactions in crowded spaces, sense of comfort/discomfort and level of stress when faced with crowded spaces during this pandemic. Furthermore, due to the notable changes in comfortable physical distance due to this pandemic, new empirical studies are required in each context to understand the actual adopted physical distance as well as the comfortable physical distance of pedestrians. It was also found that the deviation from the shortest path to the destination has been previously presented as a source of generation of discomfort as well as stress in micro scale walking environments. Thus, the role of deviation from the shortest path to destination on the generation of stress should also be considered in future empirical studies on walking in micro scale crowded spaces.
In regard to the relationship between crowded spaces and insecurity—as the other level in the hierarchy of walking needs—it was stated that the role of these crowded spaces in increasing contagion as well as stress is similar to the role of insecure public places before this pandemic in increasing the level of insecurity, fear of crime and stress. Previous studies on crime and fear of crime in the urban environment have tried to clarify the relationship between the level of crime and fear of crime with urban configuration. The relationship between urban configuration and the level of contagion as well as stress also needs to be addressed in light of the pandemic. In this regard a major debate on the relationship between type of urban configuration and crime rate was reviewed. This debate is on the impact of type of urban configuration whether permeable or defensible on level of crime as well as fear of crime. It was shown that a similar debate exists on the relationship between the type of urban configuration and the level of contagion as well as stress in the situations imposed by this pandemic. Further studies are required to clarify which type of urban configuration would contribute to less contagion and less stress in different urban sectors of each city.
Furthermore, motivational/restorative factors during walking may play a significant role in neutralizing and reducing the stress overload of inhabitants and enhancing their mental health during this pandemic. Most of the motivational/restorative factors during walking are those related to pleasurability—as one of the levels in the hierarchy of walking needs—which includes physical and social motivational factors during walking. Among the motivational/restorative physical factors during walking, natural environments as well as urban greenery have a notable impact on reducing stress and improving mental health. In this regard, the relevant theories were reviewed which support the restorative and mental health impact of natural elements and greenery on pedestrians during walking. Furthermore, the motivational/restorative factors during walking also include social factors and there is a well-known protective effect of social relationships on health and wellbeing, while social isolation is a known predictor of mortality. Such social factors are of particular importance for the mental health of inhabitants especially older people during this pandemic. Additionally, elderly people are the most vulnerable group in regard to COVID-19. However, the pandemic has adversely affected these social relations. In this regard the solutions to reviving the role of these social motivational factors at the time of the pandemic are to strengthen the possibility of passive engagement rather than active engagement with the environment and/or to reinforce the presence of motivational/restorative physical factors in walking environments instead of motivational social factors.
Finally, it was stated that walking is a movement and is different from stationary activities. Therefore, the effect of motivational/restorative factors on health as well as patterns of walking behaviour depends on the effect of compositions of these factors within consecutive visual sequences during walking. In this regard, the respected theories in urban design were reviewed. Additionally, it was shown that considering the situation imposed by COVID-19, it is more necessary to reduce concealment and increase visual connectivity among the continuous visual sequences during walking. This is in order to increase controllability as well as perceived control of pedestrians during their walking trips, which is the important factor during walking at the time of this pandemic.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support from the School of Architecture, Temuco, Universidad Mayor. The authors would also like to thank Javier Arangua Calzado, school of Architecture, Temuco, Universidad Mayor, for his support in finalizing this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Litman, T. Pandemic-Resilient Community Planning: Practical Ways to Help Communities Prepare for, Respond to, and Recover from Pandemics and Other Economic, Social and Environmental Shocks, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 2020. Available online: https://www.vtpi.org/PRCP.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2021).
  2. International Transport Forum. Covid-19 Transport Brief: Re-Spacing our Cities for Resilience, Analysis, Factors and Figures for Transport’s Response to the Coronavirus. 2020. Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/respacing-cities-resilience-covid-19.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2021).
  3. Alfonzo, M. To Walk or Not to Walk? The Hierarchy of Walking Needs. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 808–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Litman, T. Economic Value of Walkability. World Transp. Policy Pract. 2004, 10, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Craig, C.L.; Brownson, R.C.; Cragg, S.E.; Dunn, A.L. Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: A study examining walking to work. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 23, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Freeman, L.; Neckerman, K.; Schwartz-Soicher, O.; Quinn, J.; Richards, C.; Bader, M.; Lovasi, G.; Jack, D.; Weiss, C.; Konty, K.; et al. Neighborhood Walkability and Active Travel (Walking and Cycling) in New York City. J. Urban Health Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 2012, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Jack, E.; McCormack, G.R. The associations between objectively-determined and self-reported urban form characteristics and neighborhood-based walking in adults. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Kerr, J.; Emond, J.A.; Badland, H.; Reis, R.; Sarmiento, O.; Carlson, J.; Natarajan, L. Perceived Neighborhood Environmental Attributes Associated with Walking and Cycling for Transport among Adult Residents of 17 Cities in 12 Countries: The IPEN Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Saelens, B.; Sallis, J.F.; Black, J.; Chen, D. Preliminary evaluation of neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environmental scale evaluation. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1152–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bibri, S. Compact City Planning and Development: Emerging Practices and Strategies for Achieving the Goals of Sustainability. Dev. Environ. 2020, 4, 100021. [Google Scholar]
  11. Imottesjo, H.; Jaan-Henrik, K. Compact Cities Are Complex, Intense and Diverse but: Can We Design Such Emergent Urban Properties? Urban Plan. 2016, 1, 95–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shirazi, M.R. Compact Urban Form: Neighbouring and Social Activity. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Krohne, H.W. Stress and Coping Theories. Int. Encycl. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2001, 22, 15163–15170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lazarus, R.S. Emotion and Adaptation; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  15. Berto, R. The Role of Nature in Coping with Psycho-Physiological Stress: A Literature Review on Restorativeness. Behav. Sci. 2014, 4, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal and Coping; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hui, M.K.M.; Bateson, J.E.G. Testing a Theory of Crowding in the Service Environment. In NA—Advances in Consumer Research Volume 17; Marvin, E., Goldberg, G.C., Richard, W., Eds.; Association for Consumer Research: Provo, UT, USA, 1990; pp. 866–873. [Google Scholar]
  18. Yakov, E. Crowding Stress and Human Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2010, 37, 126–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Evans, G. The Built Environment and Mental Health. J. Urban Health Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 2004, 80, 536–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Shapiro, D.H.; Astin, J. Control Therapy; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  21. Taylor, S.E.; Brown, J.D. Illusions and well being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Baum, A.; Koman, S. Dixerential Response to Anticipated Crowding: Psychological Exects of Social and Spatial Density. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1976, 34, 526–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Noone, B.; Mattila, A. Consumer reaction to crowding for extended service encounters. Manag. Serv. Qual. 2009, 19, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Burger, J.M.; Oakman, J.A.; Bullard, N.G. Desire for Control and the Perception of Crowding. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1983, 9, 475–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Handy, S. Critical Assessment of the Literature on the Relationships among Transportation, Land Use, and Physical Activity. In Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence; National Academies: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  26. Paydar, M.; Kamani Fard, A.; Khaghani, M.M. Walking toward metro stations: The contribution of distance, attitudes, and perceived built environment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, Y.; Chau, C.K.; Ng, W.Y.; Leung, T.M. A review on the effects of physical built environment attributes on enhancing walking and cycling activity levels within residential neighborhoods. Cities 2016, 50, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hoogendoorn, S.; Bovy, P.H.L. Pedestrian route-choice and activity scheduling theory and models. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2004, 38, 169–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Akram, K.; Siyamak, N.F. Role of social indicators on vitality parameter to enhance the quality of women׳s communal life within an urban public space (case: Isfahan׳s traditional bazaar, Iran). Front. Archit. Res. 2018, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Middleton, J. The socialities of everyday urban walking and the ‘right to the city’. Urban Stud. 2018, 55, 296–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Paydar, M.; Fard, K.A.; Khaghani, M. Pedestrian walkways for health in Shiraz, Iran, the contribution of attitudes, and perceived environmental attributes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ishaque, M.M.; Noland, R.B. Behavioural issues in pedestrian speed choice and street crossing behaviour: A review. Transp. Rev. 2007, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kitazawa, K.; Batty, M. Pedestrian behaviour modelling. In Developments in Design & Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning; Eindhoven University of Technology: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 111–126. [Google Scholar]
  34. Papadimitriou, E.; Yannis, G.; Golias, J. A critical assessment of pedestrian behaviour models. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2009, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ewing, R.; Handy, S. Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. J. Urban Des. 2009, 14, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dabbs, J.M.; Stokes, N.A. Beauty is power: The use of space on the sidewalk. Sociometry 1975, 38, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Willis, A.; Gjersoe, N.; Havard, C.; Kerridge, J.; Kukla, R. Human movement behaviour in urban spaces: Implications for the design and modelling of effective pedestrian environments. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2004, 31, 805–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kukla, R.; Kerridge, J.; Willis, A.; Hine, J. PEDFLOW: Development of an autonomous agent model of pedestrian flow. Transp. Res. Rec. Number 2001, 1774, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Osaragi, T. Modeling of Pedestrian Behavior and Its Application to Spatial Evaluation; Tokyo Institute of Technology: Tokyo, Japan, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  40. Paydar, M.; Fard, K.A.; Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R. Perceived security of women in relation to their path choice toward sustainable neighborhood in Santiago, Chile. Cities 2017, 60, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lorenc, T.; Clayton, S.; Neary, D.; Whitehead, M.; Petticrew, M.; Thomson, H.; Cummins, S.; Sowden, A.; Renton, A. Crime, Fear of Crime, Environment, and Mental Health and Wellbeing: Mapping Review of Theories and Causal Pathways. Health Place 2012, 18, 757–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Beatty, C.; Dibbens, C.; Goyder, E.; Grimsley, M.; Manning, J.; Peters, J.; Wilson, I. Health of NDC Residents: Who Has the Most to Gain? Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research; Sheffield Hallam University: Sheffield, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  43. Chandola, T. The fear of crime and area differences in health. Health Place 2001, 7, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Green, G.; Gilbertson, J.M.; Grimsley, M.F.J. Fear of crime and health in residential tower blocks: A case study in Liverpool, UK. Eur. J. Public Health 2002, 12, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Roberts, B.; Stickley, A.; Petticrew, M.; McKee, M. The influence of concern about crime on levels of psychological distress in the former Soviet Union. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2010, 66, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Stafford, M.; Chandola, T.; Marmot, M. Association between fear of crime and mental health and physical functioning. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97, 2076–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sohn, D.W. Residential crimes and neighbourhood built environment: Assessing the effectiveness of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Cities 2016, 52, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Twinam, T. Danger zone: Land use and the geography of neighborhood crime. J. Urban Econ. 2017, 100, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Browning, C.R.; Byron, R.A.; Calder, C.A.; Krivo, L.J.; Kwan, M.-P.; Lee, J.Y.; Peterson, R.D. Commercial density, residential concentration, and crime: Land use patterns and violence in neighborhood context. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 2010, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Duany, A.; Plater-Zyberk, E.; Speck, J. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream; North Point Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hillier, B.; Shu, S. Crime and Urban Layout: The Need for Evidence. In Secure Foundations: Key Issues in Crime Prevention; Ballintyne, S., Pease, K., McLaren, V., Eds.; Crime Reduction and Community Safety, Institute of Public Policy Research: London, UK, 2000; pp. 224–248. [Google Scholar]
  52. Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities; Random House Digital, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  53. Anderson, J.; MacDonald, J.M.; Bluthenthal, R.; Ashwood, S. Reducing crime by shaping the built environment with zoning: An empirical study of Los Angeles. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 2013, 161, 699–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Cozens, P.M. New urbanism, crime and the suburbs: A review of the evidence. Urban Policy Res. 2008, 26, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Schneider, R.; Kitchen, T. Crime Prevention and the Built Environment; Routledge: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  56. Yang, X. Exploring the Influence of Environmental Features on Residential Burglary Using Spatialtemporal Pattern Analysis; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  57. Greenberg, S.W.; Rohe, W.M.; Williams, J.R. Safety in urban neighborhoods: A comparison of physical characteristics and informal territorial control in high and low crime neighborhoods. Popul. Environ. 1982, 5, 141–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Poyner, B. Design against Crime: Beyond Defensible Space; University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hayslett-McCall, K.L. Neighborhoods, Land-Use and Robbery Rates: A Test of Routine Activity Theory; The Pennsylvania State University: State College, PA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kinney, J.B.; Brantingham, P.L.; Wuschke, K.; Kirk, M.G.; Brantingham, P.J. Crime attractors, generators and detractors: Land use and urban crime opportunities. Built Environ. 2008, 34, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hamidi, S.; Sabouri, S.; Ewing, R. Does Density Aggravate the COVID-19 Pandemic?: Early Findings and Lessons for Planners. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. McAslan, D. Walking and Transit Use Behavior in Walkable Urban Neighborhoods. Mich. J. Sustain. 2017, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Northridge, M.; Sclar, E.; Biswas, P. Sorting Out the Connections between the Built Environment and Health: A Conceptual Framework for Navigating Pathways and Planning Healthy Cities. J. Urban Health Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 2004, 80, 556–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Grazuleviciene, R.; Vencloviene, J.; Kubilius, R.; Grizas, V.; Dedele, A.; Grazulevicius, T.; Ceponiene, I.; Tamuleviciute-Prasciene, E.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Jones, M.; et al. The Effect of Park and Urban Environments on Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Randomized Trial. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Chan, E.T.H.; Schwanen, T.; Banister, D. The role of perceived environment, neighbourhood characteristics, and attitudes in walking behaviour: Evidence from a rapidly developing city in China. Transportation 2019, 48, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Nehme, E.; Oluyomi, A.O.; Calise, T.V.; Kohl, H.W. Environmental Correlates of Recreational Walking in the Neighborhood. Am. J. Health Promot. 2016, 30, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Paydar, M.; Fard, K.A. Perceived legibility in relation to path choice of commuters in central business district. Urban Des. Int. 2016, 21, 213–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Saelens, B.E.; Handy, S.L. Built Environment Correlates of Walking. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, S550–S566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Zhai, Y.; Korca, P. Urban Park Pathway Design Characteristics and Senior Walking Behavior. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Isaacs, R. The Urban Picturesque: An aesthetic experience of urban pedestrians places. J. Urban Des. 2000, 5, 145–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Barton, J.; Hine, R.; Pretty, J. The health benefits of walking in greenspaces of high natural and heritage value. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2009, 6, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Houlden, V.; Weich, S.; de Albuquerque, P.J.; Jarvis, S.; Rees, K. The relationship between greenspace and the mental wellbeing of adults: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0203000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; de Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Schellevis, F.G.; Groenewegen, P.P. Morbidity is related to a green living environment. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009, 63, 967–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Song, C.; Ikei, H.; Igarashi, M.; Takagaki, M.; Miyazaki, Y. Physiological and Psychological Effects of a Walk in Urban Parks in Fall. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 14216–14228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Song, C.; Ikei, H.; Park, B.-J.; Lee, J.; Kagawa, T.; Miyazaki, Y. Psychological Benefits of Walking through Forest Areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Korpela, K.M.; Ylén, M.; Tyrväinen, L.; Silvennoinen, H. Favorite green, waterside and urban environments, restorativeexperiences and perceived health in Finland. Health Promot. Int. 2010, 25, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Clatworthy, J.; Hinds, J.M.; Camic, P.M. Gardening as a mental health intervention: A review. Ment. Health Rev. J. 2013, 18, 214–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ulrich, R.S. Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In Behavior and the Natural Environment; Altman, I., Wohlwill, J.F., Eds.; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 85–125. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ward Thompson, C.; de Oliveira, S.E.M. Evidence on health benefits of urban green spaces. In Urban Green Spaces and Health: A Review of Evidence; Egorov, A.P., Mudu, M., Martuzzi, M., Eds.; World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016; pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  81. Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. Well-being, Reasonableness, and the Natural Environment. Applied Psychology: Health Well-Being 2011, 3, 304–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Diette, G.B.; Lechtzin, E.; Haponik, E.; Devrotes, A.; Rubin, H.R. Distraction therapy with nature sights and sounds reduces pain during flexible bronchoscopy. Chest 2003, 123, 941–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Hartig, T.; Evans, G.W.; Jamner, L.D.; Davis, D.S.; Gärling, T. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ottosson, J.; Grahn, P. A comparison of leisure time spent in a garden with leisure time spent indoors: On measures of restoration in residents in geriatric care. Landscape Res. 2005, 30, 23–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Van den Berg, A.E.; Koole, S.L.; van der Wulp, N.Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? J. Environ. Psychol 2003, 23, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Nieminen, T.; Martelin, T.; Koskinen, S.; Aro, H.; Alanen, E.; Hyyppä, M. Social capital as a determinant of self-rated health and psychological well-being. Int. J. Public Health 2010, 55, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pantell, M.; Rehkopf, D.; Jutte, D.; Syme, S.L.; Balmes, J.; Adler, N. Social Isolation: A Predictor of Mortality Comparable to Traditional Clinical Risk Factors. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, 2056–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Yang, C.Y.; Boen, C.; Gerken, K.; Li, T.; Schorpp, K.; Harris, K.M. Social relationships and physiological determinants of longevity across the human life span. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 578–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Clark, A.; Scott, D. Does the social environment influence active travel? An investigation of walking in Hamilton, Canada. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 31, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Krogstad, J.; Randi, H.; Tennøy, A. Improving walking conditions for older adults. A three-step method investigation. Eur. J. Ageing 2015, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Booth, M.L.; Owen, N.; Bauman, A.; Clavisi, O.; Leslie, E. Socialcognitive and perceived environment influences associated with physical activity in older Australians. Prev. Med. 2000, 31, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Harley, A.E.; Katz, M.L.; Heaney, C.A.; Duncan, D.T.; Buckworth, J.; Odoms-Young, A.; Willis, S.K. Social support and companionship among active African American women. Am. J. Health Behav. 2009, 33, 673–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Cleland, V.; Ball, K.; Hume, C.; Timperio, A.; King, A.C.; Crawford, D. Individual, social and environmental correlates of physical activity among women living in socioeconmically disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 2011–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Hohepa, M.; Scragg, R.; Schofield, G.; Kolt, G.; Schaat, D. Social support for youth physical activity: Importance of siblings, parents, friends, and school support across a segmented school day. Int. J. Behavi. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 2007, 4, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Cauwenberg, J.V.; Donder, L.D.; Clarys, P.; Bourdeaudhuij, I.D.; Buffel, T.; Witte, N.D.; Dury, S.; Verte, D.; Deforche, B. Relationships between the perceived neighbourhood social environment and walking for transportation among older adults. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014, 104, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Jancey, J.M.; Clarke, A.; Howat, P.A.; Lee, A.H.; Shilton, T.; Fisher, J. A physical activity program to mobilize older people: A practical and sustainable approach. Gerontologist 2008, 48, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Stahl, A.; Carlsson, G.; Hovbrandt, P.; Iwarsson, S. ‘‘Let’s go for a walk!’’: Identification and prioritization of accessibility and safety measures involving elderly people in a residential area. Eur. J. Ageing 2008, 5, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Stathi, A.; Gilbert, H.; Fox, K.R.; Coulson, J.; Davis, M.; Thompson, J.L. Determinants of neighborhood activity of adults age 70 and over: A mixed-methods study. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2012, 20, 148–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Ujang, N.; Kozlowski, M.; Maulan, S. Linking place attachment and social interaction: Towards meaningful public places. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2018, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Acedo, A.; Painho, M.; Casteleyn, S. Place and city: Operationalizing sense of place and social capital in the urban context. Trans. GIS 2017, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Maslow, A.H. Motivation and Personality; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  102. Memarovic, N.; Langheinrich, M. Enhancing Community Interaction in Public Spaces through Situated Public Displays. In Proceedings of the Social Interaction in Spatially Separated Environments; Available online: https://pd-net.org/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/memarovic-sissi10-communities.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2021).
  103. Gehl, J. Cities for People; Island Press: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  104. De Vries, S.; Van Dillen, S.M.E.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 94, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Kim, J.; Kaplar, R. Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New urbanist kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 313–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Litt, J.; Schmiege, S.; Hale, J.; Buchenau, M.; Sancar, F. Exploring ecological, emotional and social levers of self-rated health for urban gardeners and non-gardeners: A path analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Honey-Rosés, J.; Anguelovski, I.; Chireh, V.K.; Daher, C.; Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.; Litt, J.S.; Mawani, V.; McCall, M.K.; Orellana, A.; Oscilowicz, E.; et al. The impact of COVID-19 on public space: An early review of the emerging questions—Design, perceptions and inequities. Cities Health 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Appleton, J. The Experience of Landscape; Wiley: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  109. Dosen, A.S.; Ostwald, M.J. Evidence for prospect-refuge theory: A meta-analysis of the findings of environmental preference research. City Territ. Archit. 2016, 3, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Mumcu, S.; Düzenli, T.; Zbilen, A. Prospect and refuge as the predictors of preferences for seating areas. Sci. Res. Essays 2010, 5, 1223–1233. [Google Scholar]
  111. Nasar, J.L. Visual preferences in urban street scenes: A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. In Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1988; pp. 260–274. [Google Scholar]
  112. Fisher, B.; Nasar, J. Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features. Environ. Behav. 1992, 24, 35–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Petherick, N. Environmental Design and Fear: The Prospect-Refuge Model and the University College of the Cariboo Campus. West. Geogr. 2000, 10, 89–112. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.