Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nearby outdoor recreation modelling: An agent-based approach

Morelle, Kevin, Buchecker, Matthias, Kienast, Felix, Tobias, Silvia·2019·Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
DOI 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract Modelling and simulating the movement of humans during outdoor nearby recreational activities can deliver important insight into the landscape services available to people in urbanized areas. Recreational activities such as walking, jogging and cycling are known to have a positive effect on people’s mental and physical health, however in urban areas access to nearby recreation areas is sometimes lacking, under-developed or impeded by man-made infrastructures. In this context, understanding the spatial behaviour of humans during outdoor recreation is a crucial step towards implementing improvement measures. In this paper, we investigated the recreation strategies of multiple individuals and the flow in the movements of these individuals using a spatially-explicit agent-based model. The model combined information on the available infrastructures (roads, housing areas), the recreational potential of the landscape and rule-based movement strategies mimicking recreationists decision-making. At the individual level, we demonstrated that the shortest-path and weighted-path strategies were used the most during nearby recreation activities. At the population level, we successfully predicted recreationist flow patterns, highlighting gaps in path infrastructure and the most preferred path sections in a small town environment. We further illustrated the versatility of the model and its potential to support planning decisions to increase the accessibility of nearby recreation areas.

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.ufug.2018.07.007

Cites

58 of 58 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bell, 2010, 9, 69
  2. Bögli, 2016, Welchen Stellenwert haben Gewässer bei der Naherholung?, Wasser Energie Luft, 118, 303

Cited by

See all 29

Metadata

Authors
Morelle, K., Buchecker, M., Kienast, F., & Tobias, S.
ORCID
Venue
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
40
Pages
286-298
ISSN
1618-8667
DOI
10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.007
Cited by
29
References
58
Language
en
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Funders
Swiss Model Project on Sustainable Spatial Development: “Attractive Access Network to Nearby Recreation Areas”

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

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.