An interdisciplinary debate on project perspectives
Table 3 Rating and weights of factors in the socio-economic wellbeing category
Socio-economic wellbeing | Rating averagea ± SD | Experts opinion | Users opinion | Experts-users | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weight (%) | Points (234.6) | Weight (%) | Points (234.6) | Weight (%) | Points (234.6) | ||
Access to quality transit | 6.94 ± 1.03 | 10.22 | 23.98 | 12.40 | 29.08 | 11.31 | 26.53 |
Housing affordability | 9.13 ± 2.12 | 16.44 | 38.58 | 13.30 | 31.20 | 14.87 | 34.89 |
Transportation affordability | 6.43 ± 1.63 | 9.29 | 21.78 | 11.65 | 27.33 | 10.47 | 24.56 |
Micro-climate/outdoor environment | 2.82 ± 0.78 | 5.18 | 12.15 | 4.03 | 9.44 | 4.60 | 10.79 |
Access services and amenities | 3.41 ± 1.08 | 4.84 | 11.36 | 6.27 | 14.72 | 5.56 | 13.04 |
Local parking | 3.65 ± 1.33 | 5.49 | 12.89 | 6.40 | 15.02 | 5.95 | 13.95 |
Traffic load | 7.23 ± 1.59 | 9.75 | 22.87 | 13.82 | 32.42 | 11.79 | 27.65 |
Employment opportunities | 3.16 ± 0.66 | 4.75 | 11.14 | 5.53 | 12.98 | 5.14 | 12.06 |
Pedestrian network | 2.98 ± 0.45 | 4.29 | 10.05 | 5.41 | 12.69 | 4.85 | 11.37 |
Alternative transport options | 4.59 ± 1.17 | 11.75 | 27.56 | 3.20 | 7.51 | 7.47 | 17.53 |
Access to grocery stores | 2.71 ± 0.56 | 3.43 | 8.05 | 5.41 | 12.68 | 4.42 | 10.37 |
Navigation and way finding | 2.40 ± 0.87 | 4.81 | 11.29 | 3.02 | 7.08 | 3.91 | 9.18 |
Quality of building stock | 2.62 ± 0.26 | 3.77 | 8.83 | 4.79 | 11.23 | 4.28 | 10.03 |
Levels of walkways/spaces | 1.66 ± 0.22 | 3.05 | 7.16 | 2.37 | 5.55 | 2.71 | 6.36 |
Shading of passages | 1.64 ± 0.49 | 2.94 | 6.90 | 2.41 | 5.65 | 2.68 | 6.28 |