Laws and bylaws are regularly challenged for their effectiveness in containing urbanisation sprawl and, conversely, for the constraints they put on development projects. From a French case study, we used survival analysis to disentangle a complex mix of influences on the distribution of residential construction over a 42-year observation period at plot scale when almost everything changes simultaneously. We found that integrated laws and bylaws can slow down coastal urbanisation but do not stop it. Although land planning is becoming more effective, it still provides ample opportunity for residential development because other factors, like distance to existing infrastructure, exert a far stronger influence than the protection of coastal areas. Therefore, this article contributes to filling a knowledge gap about the founding role of public policies on land use dynamics. 相似文献
Objective: The main objective of this article is to examine whether the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX) applies to German drivers because this scale has previously been given to drivers in many different countries.
Methods: We applied German versions of the DAX, the Driving Anger Scale (DAS), and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) to a sample of 501 German drivers. We computed confirmatory factor analysis and principal axis factoring (PAF) analysis to examine the structure of driving anger expression in Germany. Finally, we related the drivers’ anger exp ression scores to their driving anger experiences and their general anger propensities to assess the validity of the DAX for German drivers.
Results: Results indicated that the DAX’s original factor structure does not apply to German drivers because the confirmatory factor analysis did not show a good model fit. An item analysis revealed that many DAX items had no meaningful variability. They were excluded from further analysis. The subsequent PAF analysis indicated that German drivers do not use personal physical aggression to express their driving anger. Instead, they reported unique preventive anger expression management behavior. In addition, their driving anger expressions were significantly related to their driving anger experiences and their general anger propensities indicated the validity of the refined DAX for German drivers.
Conclusions: We conclude that German drivers do not use strong behaviors to express their driving anger. Many statements of Deffenbacher et al.’s (Behav Res Ther. 40:717–737, 2002) original American questionnaire were not applicable for our sample of German drivers. These findings are in line with several other studies showing discrepancies in driving anger expression in various countries. Future investigations should examine the reasons for discrepancies in driving anger expression. 相似文献
AbstractObjective: The human–machine interface (HMI) is a crucial part of every automated driving system (ADS). In the near future, it is likely that—depending on the operational design domain (ODD)—different levels of automation will be available within the same vehicle. The capabilities of a given automation level as well as the operator’s responsibilities must be communicated in an appropriate way. To date, however, there are no agreed-upon evaluation methods that can be used by human factors practitioners as well as researchers to test this.Methods: We developed an iterative test procedure that can be applied during the product development cycle of ADS. The test procedure is specifically designed to evaluate whether minimum requirements as proposed in NHTSA’s automated vehicle policy are met.Results: The proposed evaluation protocol includes (a) a method to identify relevant use cases for testing on the basis of all theoretically possible steady states and mode transitions of a given ADS; (b) an expert-based heuristic assessment to evaluate whether the HMI complies with applicable norms, standards, and best practices; and (c) an empirical evaluation of ADS HMIs using a standardized design for user studies and performance metrics.Conclusions: Each can be used as a stand-alone method or in combination to generate objective, reliable, and valid evaluations of HMIs, focusing on whether they meet minimum requirements. However, we also emphasize that other evaluation aspects such as controllability, misuse, and acceptance are not within the scope of the evaluation protocol. 相似文献