Abstract
BackgroundExamining community perspective on an issue is not only a key consideration in research on road safety but also on other topics. There is substantial theoretical and empirical knowledge on built environment factors that contribute to pedestrian injury but how the community views these factors is least studied and constitutes the focus of this study. Our study investigated how respondents ranked the relative importance of selected built environment factors that contribute to pedestrian injury risk in Kampala city, Uganda and examined the underlying pattern behind the rankings.MethodsEight hundred and fifty-one pedestrians selected from 14 different road sections in Kampala city were asked to rank each of the 27 built environment variables on a 4-point Likert scale. Point score analysis was used to calculate scores for the different built environment variables and rank them in order of perceived contribution while factor analysis was used to determine the pattern underlying the responses.ResultsFactor analysis isolated two factors that explained 92% of the variation in respondents’ rankings: ‘road adjacent trip generators and attractors’ and ‘structure of traffic flows’. This finding implies that pedestrians in Kampala city perceived trip generators and attractors adjacent to the road and the structure of traffic flows as major explanations of the influence of the built environment on pedestrian injury risk.ConclusionWhile these rankings and factors identified may not necessarily equate to actual risk, they are important in providing an understanding of pedestrian injury risk from the perspective of the community.
Funder
Federal Ministry of Education and Research
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference40 articles.
1. Institute of Medicine US CoAtHotPitsC, Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention . 4. the community. In: The Future of the Public’s Health in the 21st Century. National Academy Press, 2003.
2. Community perspectives on the impact of climate change on health in nunavut, canada;Healey;ARCTIC,2011
3. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research;Norström;Nat Sustain,2020
4. Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making;Latulippe;Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,2020
5. Chambers R . Whose reality counts? Rugby, Warwickshire, United Kingdom: Intermediate technology publications, 1997. doi:10.3362/9781780440453