Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 161

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Auditing street walkability and associated social inequalities for planning implications

Su, Shiliang, Zhou, Hao, Xu, Mengya, Ru, Hu, Wang, Wen, Weng, Min·2019·Journal of Transport Geography

Abstract

Abstract Transport planning is gradually shifting targets towards modifying the pedestrian streetscapes that favor walking and enhance urban sustainability. We cannot be optimistic about walkability on condition that walkable streets are not evenly distributed within urban settings. Auditing the street walkability and associated social inequalities in developing countries should provide critical implications for transport planning. This paper identifies the most common indicators in existing indicator classification frameworks based on word frequency; and then establishes an indicator classification system (connectivity, accessibility, suitability, serviceability, and perceptibility) through expert panel evaluation for auditing street walkability in China. Using a case of Hangzhou metropolitan area, a set of 13 indicators are first selected by referring to the established indicator classification system and then aggregated into an integrated walkability index (IWI) through the catastrophe theory (CT) model after appropriate data treatment (standardization, normalization and correlation calculation). Camera signaling data are employed to validate the developed IWI. Results show that IWI is efficient to audit street walkability. IWI presents great heterogeneity at segment level. In general, higher walkability is observed in streets across the central and western areas. Walkability profiles of the segments are further produced by the clustering approach and the categorized groups can inform more targeted planning options. Spatial regression is finally utilized to quantify the associations between community socio-demographics and neighborhood IWI at two levels. We discover that lower neighborhood walkability would be observed in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. These results suggest that significant social inequalities in street walkability should exist across the communities within Hangzhou metropolitan area. The developed IWI not only brings a standardized measurement of street walkability in the field of transport planning, but also paves the way for addressing the social inequalities in street design across various jurisdictions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.11.003

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Su, S., Zhou, H., Xu, M., Ru, H., Wang, W., & Weng, M.
Venue
Journal of Transport Geography
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
74
Pages
62-76
ISSN
0966-6923 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2901564266
Cited by
161
References
4
FWCI
17.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Auditing street walkability and associated social inequalities for planning implications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.11.003
The paper
Su, S., Zhou, H., Xu, M., Ru, H., Wang, W., & Weng, M. (2019). Auditing street walkability and associated social inequalities for planning implications. Journal of Transport Geography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.11.003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.