IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i9p1014-d110899.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Active Transportation on a Complete Street: Perceived and Audited Walkability Correlates

Author

Listed:
  • Wyatt A. Jensen

    (Department of Family & Consumer Studies, University of Utah, 225 S 1400 E RM 228, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA)

  • Barbara B. Brown

    (Department of Family & Consumer Studies and Cancer Control & Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, 225 S 1400 E RM 228, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA)

  • Ken R. Smith

    (Department of Family & Consumer Studies and Cancer Control & Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, 225 S 1400 E RM 228, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA)

  • Simon C. Brewer

    (Department of Geography, University of Utah, 332 S 1400 E RM 217, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA)

  • Jonathan W. Amburgey

    (Department of Psychology, Westminster College, 1840 S 1300 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84105, USA)

  • Brett McIff

    (Utah Department of Health, 288 N 1460 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, USA)

Abstract

Few studies of walkability include both perceived and audited walkability measures. We examined perceived walkability (Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale—Abbreviated, NEWS-A) and audited walkability (Irvine–Minnesota Inventory, IMI) measures for residents living within 2 km of a “complete street”—one renovated with light rail, bike lanes, and sidewalks. For perceived walkability, we found some differences but substantial similarity between our final scales and those in a prior published confirmatory factor analysis. Perceived walkability, in interaction with distance, was related to complete street active transportation. Residents were likely to have active transportation on the street when they lived nearby and perceived good aesthetics, crime safety, and traffic safety. Audited walkability, analyzed with decision trees, showed three general clusters of walkability areas, with 12 specific subtypes. A subset of walkability items ( n = 11), including sidewalks, zebra-striped crosswalks, decorative sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and blank walls combined to cluster street segments. The 12 subtypes yielded 81% correct classification of residents’ active transportation. Both perceived and audited walkability were important predictors of active transportation. For audited walkability, we recommend more exploration of decision tree approaches, given their predictive utility and ease of translation into walkability interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Wyatt A. Jensen & Barbara B. Brown & Ken R. Smith & Simon C. Brewer & Jonathan W. Amburgey & Brett McIff, 2017. "Active Transportation on a Complete Street: Perceived and Audited Walkability Correlates," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:9:p:1014-:d:110899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/9/1014/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/9/1014/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saelens, B.E. & Sallis, J.F. & Black, J.B. & Chen, D., 2003. "Neighborhood-Based Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1552-1558.
    2. Tomoya Hanibuchi & Tomoki Nakaya & Mayuko Yonejima & Kaori Honjo, 2015. "Perceived and Objective Measures of Neighborhood Walkability and Physical Activity among Adults in Japan: A Multilevel Analysis of a Nationally Representative Sample," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Katherine Brookfield & Catharine Ward Thompson & Iain Scott, 2017. "The Uncommon Impact of Common Environmental Details on Walking in Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-10, February.
    4. Donald Schopflocher & Eric VanSpronsen & Candace I. J. Nykiforuk, 2014. "Relating Built Environment to Physical Activity: Two Failures to Validate," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Norbert Mundorf & Colleen A. Redding & Songtao Bao, 2018. "Sustainable Transportation and Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-4, March.
    2. Barbara B. Brown & Wyatt A. Jensen, 2020. "Dog Ownership and Walking: Perceived and Audited Walkability and Activity Correlates," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-14, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ziwen Sun & Ka Yan Lai & Simon Bell & Iain Scott & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2019. "Exploring the Associations of Walking Behavior with Neighborhood Environments by Different Life Stages: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Smaller Chinese City," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Anura Amarasinghe & Gerard D'Souza & Cheryl Brown & Tatiana Borisova, 2006. "A Spatial Analysis of Obesity in West Virginia," Working Papers Working Paper 2006-13, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    3. Spielman, Seth E. & Yoo, Eun-hye, 2009. "The spatial dimensions of neighborhood effects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1098-1105, March.
    4. Kevin Credit & Elizabeth Mack, 2019. "Place-making and performance: The impact of walkable built environments on business performance in Phoenix and Boston," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(2), pages 264-285, February.
    5. Mi Namgung & B. Elizabeth Mercado Gonzalez & Seungwoo Park, 2019. "The Role of Built Environment on Health of Older Adults in Korea: Obesity and Gender Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-13, September.
    6. Courtney Coughenour & Hanns de la Fuente-Mella & Alexander Paz, 2019. "Analysis of Self-Reported Walking for Transit in a Sprawling Urban Metropolitan Area in the Western U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Eric T. H. Chan & Tim Schwanen & David Banister, 2021. "The role of perceived environment, neighbourhood characteristics, and attitudes in walking behaviour: evidence from a rapidly developing city in China," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 431-454, February.
    8. McNeill, Lorna Haughton & Kreuter, Matthew W. & Subramanian, S.V., 2006. "Social Environment and Physical activity: A review of concepts and evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 1011-1022, August.
    9. Fernando Fonseca & Escolástica Fernandes & Rui Ramos, 2022. "Walkable Cities: Using the Smart Pedestrian Net Method for Evaluating a Pedestrian Network in Guimarães, Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    10. repec:rri:wpaper:200613 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Kent, Jennifer L. & Mulley, Corinne & Stevens, Nick, 2020. "Challenging policies that prohibit public transport use: Travelling with pets as a case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 86-94.
    12. Victor O. Akande & Robert A.C. Ruiter & Stef P.J. Kremers, 2019. "Environmental and Motivational Determinants of Physical Activity among Canadian Inuit in the Arctic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-14, July.
    13. Letizia Appolloni & Maria Vittoria Corazza & Daniela D’Alessandro, 2019. "The Pleasure of Walking: An Innovative Methodology to Assess Appropriate Walkable Performance in Urban Areas to Support Transport Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-26, June.
    14. Jun-Hyun Kim & Chanam Lee & Wonmin Sohn, 2016. "Urban Natural Environments, Obesity, and Health-Related Quality of Life among Hispanic Children Living in Inner-City Neighborhoods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    15. Park, Sungjin, 2008. "Defining, Measuring, and Evaluating Path Walkability, and Testing Its Impacts on Transit Users’ Mode Choice and Walking Distance to the Station," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0ct7c30p, University of California Transportation Center.
    16. Razieh Zandieh & Javier Martinez & Johannes Flacke & Phil Jones & Martin Van Maarseveen, 2016. "Older Adults’ Outdoor Walking: Inequalities in Neighbourhood Safety, Pedestrian Infrastructure and Aesthetics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, November.
    17. Katherine Brookfield & Sara Tilley, 2016. "Using Virtual Street Audits to Understand the Walkability of Older Adults’ Route Choices by Gender and Age," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, October.
    18. Guillem Artigues & Sara Mateo & Maria Ramos & Elena Cabeza, 2020. "Validation of the Urban Walkability Perception Questionnaire (UWPQ) in the Balearic Islands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-16, September.
    19. Zimu Jia & Long Chen & Jingjia Chen & Guowei Lyu & Ding Zhou & Ying Long, 2020. "Urban modeling for streets using vector cellular automata: Framework and its application in Beijing," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1418-1439, October.
    20. Mouhcine Guettabi & Abdul Munasib, 2014. "Urban Sprawl, Obesogenic Environment, And Child Weight," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(3), pages 378-401, June.
    21. Neatt, Kevin & Millward, Hugh & Spinney, Jamie, 2017. "Neighborhood walking densities: A multivariate analysis in Halifax, Canada," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 9-16.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:9:p:1014-:d:110899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.