PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Pedestrian-oriented zoning, including zoning code reforms (ZCR), may be especially beneficial to racially and economically segregated communities, which may lack built environment features that support physical activity. This study examined associations between racialized economic segregation, measured by quintiles of the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, and public transit (PTW) and active travel (ATW) to work, and whether associations were moderated by pedestrian-oriented zoning provisions and ZCR, respectively.
METHODS: Zoning codes effective as of 2010 representing 3914 US municipalities (45.45% of US population) were evaluated for the presence of ZCR and eight pedestrian-oriented zoning provisions. These data were linked with American Community Survey 2013-2017 and NAVTEQ 2013 data on the outcomes and relevant covariates. Fractional logit regressions were computed with standard errors clustered on county.
RESULTS: Workers from more deprived quintiles were less likely to engage in PTW and ATW (OR = 0.22-0.55, p < 0.01), and tests revealed moderation by zoning (p < 0.05). ZCR was positively associated with PTW for the three most deprived quintiles (OR = 1.53-2.38, p < 0.01), and with ATW for the two most deprived quintiles (OR = 1.42-1.69, p < 0.01) and the second most privileged quintile (OR = 1.26, p < 0.05). In the most privileged quintile, the zoning scale score was negatively associated with PTW (OR = 0.91, p < 0.001) and ATW (OR = 0.94, p < 0.01). However, in the most deprived quintiles, the zoning scale score was positively associated with PTW (Q2: OR = 1.13, p < 0.01) and ATW (Q1-Q2: OR = 1.07-1.09, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Pedestrian-oriented zoning can provide opportunities for ATW in the most deprived communities. Work is needed to explore zoning policy implementation in those communities.
METHODS: Zoning codes effective as of 2010 representing 3914 US municipalities (45.45% of US population) were evaluated for the presence of ZCR and eight pedestrian-oriented zoning provisions. These data were linked with American Community Survey 2013-2017 and NAVTEQ 2013 data on the outcomes and relevant covariates. Fractional logit regressions were computed with standard errors clustered on county.
RESULTS: Workers from more deprived quintiles were less likely to engage in PTW and ATW (OR = 0.22-0.55, p < 0.01), and tests revealed moderation by zoning (p < 0.05). ZCR was positively associated with PTW for the three most deprived quintiles (OR = 1.53-2.38, p < 0.01), and with ATW for the two most deprived quintiles (OR = 1.42-1.69, p < 0.01) and the second most privileged quintile (OR = 1.26, p < 0.05). In the most privileged quintile, the zoning scale score was negatively associated with PTW (OR = 0.91, p < 0.001) and ATW (OR = 0.94, p < 0.01). However, in the most deprived quintiles, the zoning scale score was positively associated with PTW (Q2: OR = 1.13, p < 0.01) and ATW (Q1-Q2: OR = 1.07-1.09, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Pedestrian-oriented zoning can provide opportunities for ATW in the most deprived communities. Work is needed to explore zoning policy implementation in those communities.
摘要：
目标：面向行人的分区，包括分区代码改革(ZCR)，可能对种族和经济隔离的社区特别有利，这可能缺乏支持身体活动的建筑环境特征。这项研究考察了种族化的经济隔离，以极端集中指数的五分位数衡量，和公共交通(PTW)和主动旅行(ATW)工作，以及协会是否由行人分区规定和ZCR主持，分别。
方法：评估了截至2010年，代表3914个美国城市（占美国人口的45.45％）的分区代码是否存在ZCR和8个面向行人的分区规定。这些数据与2013-2017年美国社区调查和NAVTEQ2013年结果和相关协变量的数据相关联。分数logit回归是用县上的标准误差计算的。
结果：来自更贫困的五分之一的工人不太可能从事PTW和ATW（OR=0.22-0.55，p<0.01），测试显示分区适度(p<0.05)。ZCR与PTW呈正相关(OR=1.53-2.38,p<0.01),ATW为两个最贫困的五分位数（OR=1.42-1.69，p<0.01）和第二特权的五分位数（OR=1.26，p<0.05）。在最有特权的五分之一，分区评分与PTW(OR=0.91,p<0.001)和ATW(OR=0.94,p<0.01)呈负相关。然而,在最贫困的五分之一，分区评分与PTW（Q2：OR=1.13，p<0.01）和ATW（Q1-Q2：OR=1.07-1.09，p<0.05）呈正相关。
结论：面向行人的分区可以在最贫困的社区中为ATW提供机会。需要开展工作，探索在这些社区实施分区政策。
方法：评估了截至2010年，代表3914个美国城市（占美国人口的45.45％）的分区代码是否存在ZCR和8个面向行人的分区规定。这些数据与2013-2017年美国社区调查和NAVTEQ2013年结果和相关协变量的数据相关联。分数logit回归是用县上的标准误差计算的。
结果：来自更贫困的五分之一的工人不太可能从事PTW和ATW（OR=0.22-0.55，p<0.01），测试显示分区适度(p<0.05)。ZCR与PTW呈正相关(OR=1.53-2.38,p<0.01),ATW为两个最贫困的五分位数（OR=1.42-1.69，p<0.01）和第二特权的五分位数（OR=1.26，p<0.05）。在最有特权的五分之一，分区评分与PTW(OR=0.91,p<0.001)和ATW(OR=0.94,p<0.01)呈负相关。然而,在最贫困的五分之一，分区评分与PTW（Q2：OR=1.13，p<0.01）和ATW（Q1-Q2：OR=1.07-1.09，p<0.05）呈正相关。
结论：面向行人的分区可以在最贫困的社区中为ATW提供机会。需要开展工作，探索在这些社区实施分区政策。
