[雙語翻譯]廣場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)外文翻譯--活動(dòng)、鍛煉與戶外空間規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)（節(jié)選）

1、中文 中文 2930 字， 字，1700 單詞， 單詞，9700 英文字符 英文字符出處： 出處：Thompson C W. Activity, exercise and the planning and design of outdoor spaces[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2013, 34(34):79-96.6. Activity, exercise and the pl

2、anning and design of outdoor spacesCatharine Ward ThompsonAbstract This paper reviews research into the relationships between attributes of outdoor environments and levels of activity and exercise in populations using

3、 those environments. It takes an environmental designer’s view of relevant and effective research and research approaches that can provide evidence for policy and practice. The paper has a tripartite structure, examin

4、ing theories, research methods, and findings that contribute to understanding links between physical activity and the planning and design of outdoor spaces. It considers concepts, methods and evidence relevant to adult

5、s’, older adults’ and children’s activities and identifies those that appear to offer greatest potential for future research. It also identifies gaps in our understanding, the need for well-conceptualized models of env

6、ironmentebehaviour interactions to elucidate these, and the importance of collecting and presenting evidence in ways that are sympathetic to design practice. If evidence is to lead to effective and salutogenic changes

7、 in our physical environment, then findings that translate readily into a design framework will be most beneficial. Keywords: Physical activity; Health; Physical environment; Environmental design; Built environment ; P

8、ublic realm IntroductionThis paper is aimed at those with an interest both in the design of physical environments that might encourage less sedentary and more active lifestyles, and in the research needed to provide

9、 supporting evidence. It does not attempt to replicate the growing number of systematic reviews and other broad overviews of evidence on the relationships between physical environment and health (e.g., Frank, Engelke,

10、 Humpel, Owen, Kaczynski New York City, 2010; Owen, Humpel, Leslie, Bauman, Sallis, 2009; Transportation Research Board, 2005). Rather, it arises from a landscape architect’s perspective on what kinds of research

11、 might be useful for designers and the oppor- tunities and challenges inherent in undertaking such work. For those unfamiliar with this domain, it provides an introduction to relevant theories and methods used in resea

12、rching links be- tween physical activity and the planning and design of outdoor spaces. It then considers findings that draw on these methods, and the gaps in our knowledge, in the hope of encouraging further resea

13、rch to improve our understanding of what designs work best in promoting and enhancing healthy activity in people’s daily lives.Design of streets and squares to support activityJan Gehl’s early work in Copenhagen

14、took advantage of a pedestrianization scheme for a city centre street to research what makes a ‘walkable’ environment through behaviour observation (Gehl rather, he has been particularly interested in the details of

15、 affordances, such as bollards (i.e., short posts) that can be perched on, or steps that can be used as seats, which encourage people to stop and linger in public open space rather than simply keep moving through them

16、. He has concluded that a key attribute for better and more sociable use of streets and squares is the number of opportunities for seating (a finding supported by Whyte, 1980), general public realm.Within more residenti

17、al street environments, Gehl (1987) has called for ‘soft edges’ to animate the street and attract social use, based on studies in Canada, Australia and Denmark. The key elements he identified are easy access in and out

18、 of buildings, good places to rest, and good opportunities for ‘something to do’ in front of houses or buildings. Examples of places that provide such elements are porches or verandahs and semi-public front yards or g

19、ardens that offer good visual access between the home environment and the public street. As identified earlier, more sociable use of street edges offers ‘eyes on the street’ that can add to feelings of safety for passe

20、rs-by.The findings and recommendations outlined in this section so far, coming largely from behaviour observation, reinforce more recent evidence on walkability, such as that by Borst et al. (2009; see Neighbourhood Wa

21、lkability, above), that show the importance not only of good pavements but also of front gardens and shops or dwellings along the street, providing attractive, sociable environments that also appear safe to use.Reducti

22、on in motorized traffic levels and speeds also enhances pedestrian and cyclist use of streets. For example, Morrison, Thomson, and Petticrew (2004) showed that introduction of speed humps on a main road bisecting a dep

23、rived housing estate in the UK resulted in increased self-report walking and observed pedestrian counts. Recent attempts to introduce street designs where traffic speeds are constrained to below 15 or 20 mph, and pedes

24、trians and cyclists are given equal priority to motorized vehicles, have offered opportunities to study whether more radical environmental designs (called Home Zones, after the Dutch ‘Woonerf’ which inspired them (see

25、 http://www.homezones.org/ concept)) can encourage more active use of the space. A study of seven pilot schemes in the UK looked at the impact on walking and cycling of Home Zone interventions that included gateways, s

26、igns and repaving to indicate shared space streets, traffic calming elements such as road narrowing and chicanes, tree and shrub planting, and street artworks, showed little change in levels of active street use (Web

27、ster, Tilly, Wheeler, Nicholls, & Buttress, 2006). Self-report levels of walking to the local shops remained almost identical after the intervention to that before, although 44% thought the walk more pleasant, and

28、cycling levels stayed the same although 30% thought cycling more pleasant after the interventions. Effects on children’s biking were again, not significant. Although these results are based on self-report rather than o

29、bjective measures of activity, they suggest that we need more evidence to understand how to enhance active use of residential streets through modifications to the road environment, as well as a better understanding of

30、 the wider context in which such modifications are experienced and responded to.Also of relevance is the way that different age groups respond to environments and environmental change. As discussed in the earlier, theo

31、retical section on environmental support for physical activity, the environment can become a limiting factor on people’s mobility as their functional capabilities change in old age (Iwarsson, 2005). It is relevant the