↓ Skip to main content

Aging and the Use of Pedestrian Facilities in Winter—The Need for Improved Design and Better Technology

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Urban Health, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
Title
Aging and the Use of Pedestrian Facilities in Winter—The Need for Improved Design and Better Technology
Published in
Journal of Urban Health, November 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11524-012-9779-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yue Li, Jennifer Anna Hsu, Geoff Fernie

Abstract

Walking outdoors is often difficult or impossible for many seniors and people with disabilities during winter. We present a novel approach for conducting winter accessibility evaluations of commonly used pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, street crossings, curb ramps (curb cuts and dropped curbs), outdoor stairs and ramps, building and transit entrances, bus stops, and driveways. A total of 183 individuals, aged 18-85 completed our survey. The results show that cold weather itself had little impact on the frequency of outdoor excursions among middle-aged and older adults while the presence of snow and/or ice on the ground noticeably kept people, especially older adults at home. The survey found that the key elements decreasing winter accessibility were icy sidewalks and puddles at street crossings and curb ramps. While communities have recognized the need to improve snow and ice removal, little attention has been paid to curb ramp design which is especially ineffective in winter when the bottom of the ramps pool with rain, snow, and ice, making it hazardous and inaccessible to nearly all users. We conclude that investigations of alternative designs of curb ramp are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 120 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Researcher 10 8%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 32 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 18 15%
Engineering 13 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Environmental Science 5 4%
Other 28 23%
Unknown 39 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,558,557
of 24,811,594 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Urban Health
#327
of 1,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,141
of 288,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Urban Health
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,811,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.