Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 599

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Land use, transport, and population health: estimating the health benefits of compact cities

Open access
Stevenson, Mark, Thompson, Jason, de Sá, Thiago Hérick, Ewing, Reid, Mohan, Dinesh, McClure, Rod, Roberts, Ian, Tiwari, Geetam, Giles-Corti, Billie, Sun, Xiaoduan, Wallace, Mark, Woodcock, James·2016·The Lancet

Abstract

Using a Health Impact Assessment Framework, we estimated the population health effects arising from alternative land-use and transport policy initiatives in six cities. Land-use changes were modelled to reflect a compact city in which land-use density and diversity were increased and distances to public transport were reduced to produce low motorised mobility, namely a modal shift from private motor vehicles to walking, cycling, and public transport. The modelled compact city scenario resulted in health gains for all cities (for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease) with the overall health gains ranging from 420 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 100 000 population to 826 DALYs per 100 000 population. However, for moderate to highly motorised cities, such as Melbourne, London, and Boston, the compact city scenario predicted a small increase in road trauma for cyclists and pedestrians (health loss of between 34 to 41 DALYs per 100 000 population). The findings suggest that government policies need to actively pursue land-use elements (particularly a focus towards compact cities) that support a modal shift away from private motor vehicles towards walking, cycling, and low-emission public transport. At the same time, these policies need to ensure the provision of safe walking and cycling infrastructure. The findings highlight the opportunities for policymakers to positively influence the overall health of city populations.

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/s0140-6736(16)30067-8

Cites

69 of 69 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 69 references

Cited by

See all 599

Metadata

Authors
Stevenson, M., Thompson, J., de Sá, T. H., Ewing, R., Mohan, D., McClure, R., Roberts, I., Tiwari, G., Giles-Corti, B., Sun, X., Wallace, M., & Woodcock, J.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
388
Issue
10062
Pages
2925-2935
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2522445019
Cited by
599
References
69
FWCI
80.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Land use, transport, and population health: estimating the health benefits of compact cities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30067-8
The paper
Stevenson, M., Thompson, J., de Sá, T. H., Ewing, R., Mohan, D., McClure, R., Roberts, I., Tiwari, G., Giles-Corti, B., Sun, X., Wallace, M., & Woodcock, J. (2016). Land use, transport, and population health: estimating the health benefits of compact cities. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30067-8

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.