Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Walkability in the Main Urban Area of Xi’an
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Street View Selection and Download
- Use street intersections as the selection points: All the intersections of the research area according to longitude and latitude were confirmed in ArcGIS, with some streets having several intersections. In our street view dataset, each intersection captured street view images from four directions (0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees).
- Select the same two to three street views with the same angle for each street before and after the pandemic (The outbreak in Xi’an began in January 2020. The two selected periods are 2019, before the outbreak, and 2022, after.) In order to ensure the consistency of the street visual angle of the downloaded pictures, according to the selection consistency principle, the horizontal direction of the street was determined by longitude and latitude, and the vertical focus was placed in the middle, composed of the end (vanishing point) of the road.
- Download the street view image using API (Application Programming Interface) data from Baidu (photo taken in February 2019) and field survey by co-researchers (photo taken in March 2022). The same street views of the two periods (before and after the pandemic) were selected for preparation. In total, the same 92 street views were used for each of the two periods in the historical blocks and the ordinary blocks of the main urban area, and for each selected point, every two street view images with the same angle of view and size for comparison (Figure 2). It should be noted that our study is based on the examination of those photos which were taken in one season of each period (before and after the pandemic). Both are in the winter and early spring time when the pedestrian flow on the studied streets is relatively less compared to that in the summer and autumn seasons. To overcome this limitation, longitudinal studies at different time periods should be considered for future investigation.
2.2. Local Integration of Street and Walkability Evaluation Score of Selected Points
2.3. Street View Segments Recognition
2.4. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
2.4.1. Create Model
2.4.2. Exclude Collinearity
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Walkability Evaluation Score and Street Physical Attribute Values of the Selected Points
3.1.1. Two Macro Street Physical Attribute Values by Space Syntax
3.1.2. Walkability Evaluation Score (WES) of Selected Points before and after COVID-19
3.2. Overall Evaluation of Street View Segments Recognition in Xi’an before and after COVID-19
3.3. Regression Analysis for Model Construction and Evaluation of Influencing Factors
3.3.1. Evaluation of the Model
3.3.2. Comparative Analysis of Influencing Factors (Significant Explanatory Variables)
4. Conclusions
- The composing elements of streets and roads were quantitatively described through image segmentation using street views of selected points, and the spatial characteristics of the pre- and post-pandemic periods were compared. The basic street network or structure has remained essentially the same, and the top three segment proportions of “building,” “road,” and “vegetation” did not change substantially between the two periods, while the proportion of the presence of “person” fell dramatically, from 4.3% (2019) to 1.87% (2022).
- Based on the walkability checklist, the 2022 results were superior to those of 2019 in terms of the walking environment, with fewer obstacles and parked motorcycles, and better safety as it relates to vehicle and people flow. However, the total score in 2022 was lower than in 2019 due to the impact of the pandemic on street vitality, as reflected in street aesthetic and commercial values, in particular. The impact of the pandemic on the vitality of streets, especially in the historical blocks, is evident.
- The significant positive factors (explanatory variables) affecting walkability in 2019 were “connectivity” and “person”, whereas the significant positive factors in 2022 mainly are “connectivity” and “bicycle”. On the other hand, it is obvious that walkability is negatively correlated with motorcycles before the pandemic. Although the street network and urban structure has not changed much during the three-year span of the study, the elements that make up the bustle and atmosphere of the urban area have changed dramatically. The main indicators affecting walkability have changed from street vitality before the pandemic to street environment after the pandemic.
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- WHO. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Weekly Epidemiological Update and Weekly Operational Update; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Shamshiripour, A.; Rahimi, E.; Shabanpour, R.; Mohammadian, A. How is COVID-19 reshaping activity-travel behavior? Evidence from a comprehensive survey in Chicago. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 7, 100216. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Shaer, A.; Rezaei, M.; Rahimi, B.M.; Shaer, F. Examining the associations between perceived built environment and active travel, before and after the Covid-19 outbreak in Shiraz city, Iran. Cities 2021, 115, 103255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrington, D.M.; Michelle, H. Changes in commuting behaviours in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. J. Transp. Health 2022, 24, 101313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Y.; Tsai, T.C.; Duncan, D.; Ji, J. Association of city-level walkability, accessibility to biking and public transportation and socio-economic features with COVID-19 infection in Massachusetts, USA: An ecological study. Geospat Health 2022, 17, 1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Orso, G.; Migliore, M. A gis-based method for evaluating the walkability of a pedestrian environment and prioritised investments. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 82, 102555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yencha, C. Valuing walkability: New evidence from computer vision methods. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 130, 689–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tinessa, F.; Pagliara, F.; Biggiero, L.; Veneri, G.D. Walkability, accessibility to metro stations and retail location choice: Some evidence from the case study of naples. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2020, 40, 100549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masoumzadeh, S.; Pendar, H. Walking as a medium of comprehending contextual assets of historical urban fabrics. Urban Res. Pract. 2021, 14, 50–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamei, E.; Ahmadi, K.; Chau, H.W.; Seyedmahmoudian, M.; Stojcevski, A. Urban design and walkability: Lessons learnt from iranian traditional cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, L.D.; Sallis, J.; Conway, T.L.; Chapman, J.E.; Saelens, B.E.; Bachman, W. Many pathways from land use to health. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2006, 72, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanden, B.; Sharmeen, F.; Weijs-Perrée, M. On the subjective quality of social interactions: Influence of neighborhood walkability, social cohesion and mobility choices. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 106, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oishi, S.; Cha, Y.; Schi, M.A.U. The Social Ecology of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths in New York City: The Role of Walkability, Wealth, and Race. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2021, 12, 1457–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). The National Walkability Index. 2021. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/national-walkability-index-user-guide-and-methodology (accessed on 20 March 2022).
- Stonor, T. How Technology Can Help Us Study and Design Mixed Use, Walkability Places, Prince’s Foundation. Walkability and Mixed-Use: Making Valuable and Healthy Communities. Walkability Report; 2020. Available online: http://princes-foundation.org/resources (accessed on 15 January 2022).
- Ewing, R.; Handy, S. Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. J. Urban Des. 2009, 14, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otsuka, N.; Wittowsky, D.; Damerau, M.; Gerten, C. Walkability Assessment for Urban Areas Around Railway Stations Along the Rhine-Alpine Corridor. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 93, 103081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, W.; Sun, Y.; Kurka, J.; Geremia, C.; Engelberg, J.K.; Cain, K.; Conway, T.; Sallis, J.F.; Hooker, S.P.; Adams, M.A. Reliability between online raters with varying familiarities of a region: Microscale audit of pedestrian streetscapes (maps). Landsc. Urban Plan 2017, 167, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steinmetz-Wood, M.; Velauthapillai, K.; O’Brien, G.; Ross, N.A. Assessing the Micro-Scale Environment Using Google Street View: The Virtual Systematic Tool for Evaluating Pedestrian Streetscapes (Virtual-Steps). BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bethlehem, J.R.; MacKenbach, J.D.; Ben-Rebah, M.; Compernolle, S.; Glonti, K.; Bárdos, H.; Rutter, H.R.; Charreire, H.; Oppert, J.-M.; Brug, J.; et al. The spotlight virtual audit tool: A valid and reliable tool to assess obesogenic characteristics of the built environment. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2014, 13, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Badland, H.M.; Opit, S.; Witten, K.; Kearns, R.A.; Mavoa, S. Can Virtual Streetscape Audits Reliably Replace Physical Streetscape Audits. J. Urban Health Bull. New York Acad. Med. 2010, 87, 1007–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yin, L.; Wang, Z. Measuring visual enclosure for street walkability: Using machine learning algorithms and Google Street View imagery. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 76, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, Q.C.; Huang, Y.; Kumar, A.; Duan, H.; Keralis, J.M.; Dwivedi, P.; Meng, H.-W.; Brunisholz, K.D.; Jay, J.; Javanmardi, M.; et al. Using 164 Million Google Street View Images to Derive Built Environment Predictors of Covid-19 Cases. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagata, S.; Nakaya, T.; Hanibuchi, T.; Amagasa, S.; Kikuchi, H.; Inoue, S. Objective scoring of streetscape walkability related to leisure walking: Statistical modeling approach with semantic segmentation of google street view images. Health Place 2020, 66, 102428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Malecki, K.C.; Engelman, C.D.; Peppard, P.E.; Nieto, F.J.; Grabow, M.L.; Bernardinello, M.; Bailey, E.; Bersch, A.J.; Walsh, M.C.; Lo, J.Y.; et al. The wisconsin assessment of the social and built environment (wasabe): A multi-dimensional objective audit instrument for examining neighborhood effects on health. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Clifton, K.J.; Livi Smith, A.D.; Rodriguez, D. The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment-sciencedirect. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 80, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Black, J.B.; Chen, D. Neighborhood-Based Differences in Physical Activity. An Environment Scale Evaluation. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1552–1558. [Google Scholar]
- Sallis, J.F.; Cain, K.L.; Conway, T.L.; Gavand, K.A.; Millstein, R.A.; Geremia, C.M.; Frank, L.D.; Saelens, B.E.; Glanz, K.; King, A.C. Is your neighborhood designed to support physical activity? A brief streetscape audit tool. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2015, 12, E141. [Google Scholar]
- Hanibuchi, T.; Nakaya, T.; Inoue, S. Virtual audits of streetscapes by crowdworkers. Health Place 2019, 59, 102203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hillier, B.; Hanson, J. The Social Logic of Space; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Hillier, B.; Penn, A. Natural movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1993, 20, 29–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kigawa, T.; Furuyama, M. Study on a Vector in Kyoto’s Modernization by means of Space Syntax. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2005, 40, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, K.; Abe, H.; Yasufuku, K.; Takahashi, A. A Comparative Study of the Change in Townscape in Historical Blocks of Xi’an, China, and Kyoto, Japan. Int. J. Geomate 2022, 22, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerin, E.; Chan, K.W.; Macfarlane, D.J.; Lee, K.Y.; Lai, P.C. Objective assessment of walking environments in ultra-dense cities: Development and reliability of the environment in asia scan tool-hong kong version (east-hk). Health Place 2011, 17, 937–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, M.; Du, Y.K.; Liu, Q.M.; Ren, Y.J.; Kawachi, I.; Lv, J.; Li, L.M. Objective assessment of urban built environment related to physical activity–development, reliability and validity of the China Urban Built Environment Scan Tool (CUBEST). BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, L.C.; Zhu, Y.; Papandreou, G.; Schroff, F.; Adam, H. Encoder-Decoder with Atrous Separable Convolution for Semantic Image Segmentation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; Brox, T. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 234–241. [Google Scholar]
- Badrinarayanan, V.; Kendall, A.; Cipolla, R.; Member, S. SegNet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2017, 39, 2481–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cordts, M.; Omran, M.; Ramos, S.; Rehfeld, T.; Schiele, B. The Cityscapes Dataset for Semantic Urban Scene Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 27–30 June 2016; IEEE: Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Papandreou, G.; Chen, L.C.; Murphy, K.; Yuille, A.L. Weakly and semi-supervised learning of a DCNN for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the ICCV, Santiago, Chile, 7–13 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
ITEM | CHECK SCORE | EXPLAIN | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Walking environment | Q1 | Sidewalk width | Positive factor | People could pass each other smoothly, or about 2 m or more |
Q2 | Obstructions | Negative factor | Surface irregularities, signboard, stall, dustbin, and so on | |
Q3 | Cars parked in the street | Negative factor | A car without a driver on the street, regardless of traffic violation | |
Q4 | Motorcycle (or bicycles) parked in the street | Negative factor | A vehicle without a driver on the street, parked casually | |
Safety | Q5 | Heavy vehicular traffic | Negative factor | Vehicles go by frequently or occasionally |
Q6 | Heavy pedestrian traffic | Positive factor | Pedestrians go by frequently or occasionally | |
Q7 | Crosswalk/crossroad | Positive factor | Including those at the start or end points of what? | |
Aesthetic and commercial value | Q8 | Streetscape (attractive/well-known tourist places) | Positive factor | Subjective evaluation; beautiful/interesting/comfortable or not |
Q9 | Many commercial stores | Positive factor | There are more than 50% commercial stores on both sides | |
Q10 | Trees along the street | Positive factor | Only those planted on the street, excluding those planted in residential and commercial areas | |
Q11 | Abandoned/under construction buildings | Negative factor | Buildings such as vacant, abandoned or under construction buildings | |
Walkability Score: Positive factor is applicable: assign 2 points Negative factor is applicable: assign 1 point |
Walking Environment, Q1–4 | Safety, Q5–7 | Aesthetic and Commercial Value, Q8–11 | Total Score | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sidewalk Wide | Obstructions | Cars Parked | Electric Vehicles/Bicycles (Parked) | Vehicular Traffic (Heavy) | Pedestrian Traffic (Heavy) | Crosswalk/Crossroad | Attractive/well-Known | Commercial Stores | Vegetation | Abandoned/Under-Construction Buildings | ||
Xi’an (2019) | 1.8372 | 1.4483 | 1.6180 | 1.7791 | 1.7791 | 1.2442 | 1.0698 | 1.3488 | 1.8023 | 1.9070 | 1.9767 | 17.8105 |
Xi’an (2022) | 1.8372 | 1.6437 | 1.6552 | 1.6322 | 1.9884 | 1.0698 | 1.0930 | 1.1977 | 1.4651 | 1.8837 | 1.9535 | 17.4194 |
Ordinary block (2019) | 1.8250 | 1.6585 | 1.3953 | 1.8000 | 1.8250 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.1750 | 1.6250 | 1.9000 | 1.9750 | 17.1789 |
Ordinary block (2022) | 1.8250 | 1.6098 | 1.4878 | 1.7561 | 1.9750 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.1000 | 1.2500 | 1.8750 | 1.9250 | 16.8037 |
Historical block (2019) | 1.8478 | 1.2609 | 1.8085 | 1.7609 | 1.7391 | 1.4565 | 1.1500 | 1.5000 | 1.9565 | 1.9130 | 1.9783 | 18.3716 |
Historical block (2022) | 1.8478 | 1.6739 | 1.8043 | 1.5217 | 2.0000 | 1.1304 | 1.2000 | 1.2826 | 1.6522 | 1.8913 | 1.9783 | 17.9826 |
Group | Class (Segment) | Xi’an 2019 before Pandemic (%) | Xi’an 2022 after Pandemic (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Ground | road | 12.679 | 16.467 |
sidewalk | 3.379 | 4.837 | |
Building | building | 39.998 | 40.563 |
wall | 2.370 | 0.863 | |
Infrastructure | fence/stall | 1.637 | 2.764 |
pole | 0.623 | 0.674 | |
traffic light | 0.220 | 0.160 | |
sign | 0.637 | 0.432 | |
Nature | vegetation | 22.081 | 18.346 |
Sky | sky | 2.529 | 2.792 |
Human | person | 4.333 | 1.867 |
rider | 0.671 | 0.622 | |
Vehicle | car | 6.629 | 3.569 |
motorcycle | 1.157 | 1.504 | |
bicycle | 0.498 | 0.440 |
2019 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model Summary b | ||||
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
1 | 0.789 a | 0.622 | 0.502 | 1.4276575 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), SMEAN(Bicycle), SMEAN(Sidewalk), SMEAN(Road), SMEAN(Vegetation), SMEAN(Sign), SMEAN(Car), SMEAN(Connectivity), SMEAN(Motorcycle), SMEAN(Sky), SMEAN(Fence_stand), SMEAN(Pole), SMEAN(Person), SMEAN(Rider), SMEAN(Int_R3), SMEAN(Building) | ||||
b. Dependent Variable: SMEAN(walkability) | ||||
2022 | ||||
Model Summary b | ||||
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
1 | 0.714 a | 0.510 | 0.401 | 1.2589683 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), SMEAN(Bicycle), SMEAN(Connectivity), SMEAN(Sidewalk), SMEAN(Fence_stand), SMEAN(Sky), SMEAN(Road), SMEAN(Rider), SMEAN(Pole), SMEAN(Sign), SMEAN(Car), SMEAN(Wall), SMEAN(Vegetation), SMEAN(Motorcycle), SMEAN(Person), SMEAN(Int_R3), SMEAN(Building) | ||||
b. Dependent Variable: SMEAN(walkability) |
2019 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ANOVA a | ||||||
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
1 | Regression | 83.386 | 15 | 5.559 | 7.410 | <0.001 b |
Residual | 133.963 | 76 | 1.763 | |||
Total | 217.349 | 91 | ||||
a. Dependent Variable: SMEAN(walkability) | ||||||
b. Predictors: (Constant), SMEAN(Bicycle), SMEAN(Sidewalk), SMEAN(Road), SMEAN(Vegetation), SMEAN(Sign), SMEAN(Car), SMEAN(Connectivity), SMEAN(Motorcycle), SMEAN(Sky), SMEAN(Fence_stand), SMEAN(Pole), SMEAN(Person), SMEAN(Rider), SMEAN(Int_R3), SMEAN(Building) | ||||||
2022 | ||||||
ANOVA a | ||||||
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
1 | Regression | 45.052 | 16 | 2.816 | 4.686 | 0.017 b |
Residual | 98.054 | 73 | 1.343 | |||
Total | 143.106 | 89 | ||||
a. Dependent Variable: SMEAN(walkability) | ||||||
b. Predictors: (Constant), SMEAN(Bicycle), SMEAN(Connectivity), SMEAN(Sidewalk), SMEAN(Fence_stand), SMEAN(Sky), SMEAN(Road), SMEAN(Rider), SMEAN(Pole), SMEAN(Sign), SMEAN(Car), SMEAN(Wall), SMEAN(Vegetation), SMEAN(Motorcycle), SMEAN(Person), SMEAN(Int_R3), SMEAN(Building) |
Coefficients a | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | Collinearity Statistics | |||
B | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
1 | (Constant) | 17.892 | 3.199 | 5.593 | <0.001 | |||
Int_R3 | −0.654 | 0.612 | −0.213 | -1.068 | 0.289 | 0.203 | 4.918 | |
Connectivity | 0.122 | 0.051 | 0.473 | 2.384 | 0.020 | 0.206 | 4.848 | |
Road | 0.002 | 0.044 | 0.007 | 0.037 | 0.970 | 0.257 | 3.888 | |
Sidewalk | −0.028 | 0.026 | −0.108 | −1.079 | 0.284 | 0.814 | 1.228 | |
Building | −0.014 | 0.028 | −0.151 | −0.493 | 0.623 | 0.186 | 9.571 | |
Fence/stall | −0.296 | 0.138 | −0.237 | −2.141 | 0.035 | 0.662 | 1.511 | |
Pole | 0.120 | 0.315 | 0.044 | 0.381 | 0.705 | 0.607 | 1.647 | |
Sign | 0.210 | 0.190 | 0.113 | 1.104 | 0.273 | 0.768 | 1.302 | |
Vegetation | −0.002 | 0.031 | −0.023 | −0.079 | 0.937 | 0.194 | 8.618 | |
Sky | −0.002 | 0.059 | −0.004 | −0.040 | 0.968 | 0.683 | 1.464 | |
Person | 0.141 | 0.039 | 0.455 | 3.591 | <0.001 | 0.506 | 1.977 | |
Rider | −0.410 | 0.268 | −0.175 | −1.531 | 0.130 | 0.620 | 1.614 | |
Car | 0.012 | 0.045 | 0.032 | 0.271 | 0.787 | 0.576 | 1.736 | |
Motorcycle | −0.057 | 0.150 | −0.139 | −1.379 | 0.050 | 0.748 | 1.337 | |
Bicycle | 0.312 | 0.336 | 0.100 | 0.928 | 0.356 | 0.701 | 1.427 | |
a. Dependent Variable: Walkability |
Coefficients a | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | Collinearity Statistics | |||
B | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
1 | (Constant) | 16.313 | 3.338 | 4.887 | <0.001 | |||
Int_R3 | 0.134 | 0.571 | 0.054 | 1.236 | 0.084 | 0.179 | 5.596 | |
Connectivity | 0.066 | 0.046 | 0.314 | 2.418 | 0.040 | 0.192 | 5.207 | |
Road | 0.001 | 0.040 | 0.007 | 0.933 | 0.048 | 0.239 | 4.176 | |
Sidewalk | −0.018 | 0.051 | −0.048 | −0.344 | 0.732 | 0.486 | 2.059 | |
Building | −0.017 | 0.026 | −0.197 | −0.682 | 0.497 | 0.113 | 8.855 | |
Wall | −0.514 | 0.374 | −0.149 | −1.373 | 0.174 | 0.798 | 1.253 | |
Fence/stall | 0.030 | 0.057 | 0.059 | 0.523 | 0.602 | 0.731 | 1.367 | |
Pole | 0.030 | 0.210 | 0.016 | 0.144 | 0.886 | 0.739 | 1.352 | |
Sign | −0.027 | 0.249 | −0.012 | −0.109 | 0.914 | 0.805 | 1.242 | |
Vegetation | −0.017 | 0.032 | −0.153 | −0.519 | 0.605 | 0.108 | 9.286 | |
Sky | −0.050 | 0.051 | −0.127 | −0.965 | 0.338 | 0.546 | 1.832 | |
Person | 0.053 | 0.064 | 0.116 | 0.823 | 0.413 | 0.471 | 2.123 | |
Rider | 0.228 | 0.170 | 0.152 | 1.338 | 0.185 | 0.727 | 1.375 | |
Car | −0.006 | 0.039 | −0.020 | −0.163 | 0.871 | 0.631 | 1.584 | |
Motorcycle | 0.000 | 0.083 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.998 | 0.661 | 1.513 | |
Bicycle | 0.588 | 0.334 | 0.180 | 1.758 | 0.056 | 0.893 | 1.120 | |
a. Dependent Variable: Walkability |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yuan, K.; Abe, H.; Otsuka, N.; Yasufuku, K.; Takahashi, A. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Walkability in the Main Urban Area of Xi’an. Urban Sci. 2022, 6, 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6030044
Yuan K, Abe H, Otsuka N, Yasufuku K, Takahashi A. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Walkability in the Main Urban Area of Xi’an. Urban Science. 2022; 6(3):44. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6030044
Chicago/Turabian StyleYuan, Kun, Hirokazu Abe, Noriko Otsuka, Kensuke Yasufuku, and Akira Takahashi. 2022. "Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Walkability in the Main Urban Area of Xi’an" Urban Science 6, no. 3: 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6030044
APA StyleYuan, K., Abe, H., Otsuka, N., Yasufuku, K., & Takahashi, A. (2022). Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Walkability in the Main Urban Area of Xi’an. Urban Science, 6(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6030044