The associations between older adults’ daily travel pattern and objective and perceived built environment: A study of three neighbourhoods in Singapore

A Study of Older Adults’ Perception of High-Density Housing Neighbourhoods in Singapore: Multi-Sensory Perspective

“…The findings suggest that some of these factors are associated with both age and self-reported health condition. Such results correspond to some recent local studies which observed the connection between environmental conditions, going out and outdoor behaviour, and physical, psychological and social well-being of elderly residents (e.g., [ 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 ]). For instance, in their qualitative study, Bhuyan and Yuen [ 120 ] concluded that older adults tend to associate safety and pedestrian-friendly features with physical health, public amenities with social well-being, and aesthetic appeal and wayfinding with mental health.…”

“…In their study, Gan, Fung and Cho [ 115 ] proposed a holistic assessment of ‘Older People’s Neighborhood Experience’, which captured some elements of environmental pleasantness and outdoor aesthetics, such as appreciation of greenery, unique neighbourood features and different ambience qualities. Similarly, Hou and colleagues [ 116 ] considered both objective and subjective (perceived) measures of built environments in reference to older adults’ travel/walking behaviour, whereby perceived measures included those on aesthetics, cleanliness and safety.…”

“…On the other hand, the frequency of participation in meeting friends at the void deck spaces and religious activities shows a trend of an increase with age. Studies have shown that accessibility to open spaces, parks, recreational facilities, eateries, markets, shops and train stations and their presence along safe and comfortable pedestrian pathways enable outdoor physical and social activities among older Singaporeans [ 117 ], increase the frequency of going out [ 116 ] and thus contribute to their physical and mental health. Research by Hou and colleagues [ 116 ], for instance, indicated a significant positive association between the proximity to wet markets and an increased tendency in residents to walk more frequently.…”

“…Studies have shown that accessibility to open spaces, parks, recreational facilities, eateries, markets, shops and train stations and their presence along safe and comfortable pedestrian pathways enable outdoor physical and social activities among older Singaporeans [ 117 ], increase the frequency of going out [ 116 ] and thus contribute to their physical and mental health. Research by Hou and colleagues [ 116 ], for instance, indicated a significant positive association between the proximity to wet markets and an increased tendency in residents to walk more frequently. On the other hand, a study by Tao and colleagues [ 118 ] suggested that a greater number of nearby amenities significantly decreases the average walking time and daily activity levels of older adults, which calls for more careful planning of neighbourhood facilities to promote physical activity among the elderly residents.…”

How Does Perceived Neighborhood Environment Affect Commuting Mode Choice and Commuting CO2 Emissions? An Empirical Study of Nanjing, China

“…While scholars have been increasingly interested in combining travel behavior, travel CO 2 emissions with urbanization [14,15], urban form [16][17][18] and land use [19][20][21] to reduce CO 2 emissions in the transportation sector, the current literature is more focused on exploring the correlations among objective measures of the built environment, travel behavior and travel CO 2 emission [22][23][24][25][26][27]. As for the impacts of the perceived built environment on travel behavior and travel-related CO 2 emissions, researchers have paid limited attention [28][29][30], especially regarding the impact of perceived neighborhood environment on travel CO 2 emissions. In fact, the perceived environment not only has the mediating effect in the impact of the built environment on travel behavior [13], but also has a direct impact on active travel behavior [31][32][33].…”