Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The built environment plays an important role in shaping physical activities and furthering a healthy lifestyle. An obesogenic environment, which promotes obesity through uninviting neighborhood design, can cause sedentary living and environmentally induced inactivity, particularly by reducing walking. Existing measures of walkability consider the distribution and features of potential destinations, but fail to account for key aspects of the built environment design, pedestrian preferences, or various reasons for walking. In this paper, we propose a new assessment method, the Perceived importance and Objective measurement of Walkability in the built Environment Rating (POWER), incorporating pedestrian preferences derived from a walking preference survey. By conducting a university campus-based case study, we developed a quantitative method, the customized analytic hierarchy process, to analyze data from the survey. The customized analytic hierarchy process was used to calculate the perceived importance of various factors. In addition, objective measurements were collected and processed from Geographic Information System (GIS) data and fieldwork. Using both perceived importance and objective measurements, we created a POWER map showing the most walkable and unwalkable places on campus. The outcome of this case study reveals the nuanced spatial variations with regard to walkability. The proposed integral measure creates an improved method for rating the walkability of the built environment. Future applications and limitations are also discussed.

Keywords

GIS customized analytic hierarchy process obesogenic environment health

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Broach

Dill

(2015) Pedestrian route choice model estimated from revealed preference GPS data. In: Active Living Research Conference, 22–25 February, San Diego, CA.

Browning

Baker

Herron

, et al. (2006) Effects of obesity and sex on the energetic cost and preferred speed of walking. Journal of Applied Physiology 100(2): 390–398.

Cao

Handy

Mokhtarian

(2006) The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation 33(1): 1–20.

Carr

Dunsiger

Marcus

(2010) Walk Score™ as a global estimate of neighborhood walkability. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39(5): 460–463.

Carr

Dunsiger

Marcus

(2011) Validation of Walk Score for estimating access to walkable amenities. British Journal of Sports Medicine 45(14): 1144–1148.

Cervero

Kockelman

(1997) Travel demand and the 3ds : Density, design and diversity. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2(3): 199–219.

Dobesova

Krivka

(2012) Walkability index in the urban planning : A case study in Olomouc City. In: Burian

(ed.), Advances in Spatial Planning. London: InTech, pp. 179–196.

Duncan

Aldstadt

Whalen

, et al. (2011) Validation of Walk Score® for estimating neighborhood walkability: An analysis of four US metropolitan areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8(12): 4160–4179.

Duncan

Aldstadt

Whalen

, et al. (2013) Validation of Walk Scores and Transit Scores for estimating neighborhood walkability and transit availability: A small-area analysis. GeoJournal 78(2): 407–416.

10.

Ellaway

Anderson

Macintyre

(1997) Does area of residence affect body size and shape? International Journal of Obesity & Related Metabolic Disorders 21(4): 304–308.

11.

Ellis

Hunter

Tully

, et al. (2016) Connectivity and physical activity: Using footpath networks to measure the walkability of built environments. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 43(1): 130–151.

12.

Emery

Crump

Bors

(2003) Reliability and validity of two instruments suitability of sidewalks and roads. American Journal of Health Promotion 18(1): 38–46.

13.

Ewing

Handy

(2009) Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design 14(1): 65–84.

14.

Fan

Wen

Kowaleski-Jones

(2014) An ecological analysis of environmental correlates of active commuting in urban U.S. Health & Place 30: 242–250.

15.

Ferreira

MAG

Sanches

(2007) Proposal of a sidewalk accessibility index. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering 1(1): 1–9.

16.

Forsyth

Southworth

(2008) Cities afoot—Pedestrians, walkability and urban design. Journal of Urban Design 13(1): 1–3.

17.

Frackelton

(2013) Pedestrian transportation project prioritization incorporating app-collected sidewalk data. Master’s Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA.

18.

Frank

Sallis

Saelens

, et al. (2010) The development of a walkability index: Application to the neighborhood quality of life study. British Journal of Sports Medicine 44(13): 924–933.

19.

Front Seat (2016) Walk Score methodology. Available at: www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml (accessed 30 April 2016).

20.

Hruby

(2015) The epidemiology of obesity: A big picture. Pharmacoeconomics 33(7): 673–689.

21.

Jackson

Kochtitzky

(2001) Creating a Health Environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

22.

Jun

H-J

Hur

(2015) The relationship between walkability and neighborhood social environment: The importance of physical and perceived walkability. Applied Geography 62: 115–124.

23.

Kim

Parent

vom Hofe

(2018) The role of peer effects and the built environment on individual travel behavior. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 45(3): 452–469.

24.

Koschinsky

Talen

Alfonzo

, et al. (2017) How walkable is Walker’s paradise? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44(2): 343–363.

25.

Krizek

(2003) Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use-travel behavior research and regional modeling. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22(3): 270–287.

26.

Litman

(2014) Land for vehicles or people? Planetizen. Available at: www.planetizen.com/node/72454/land-vehicles-or-people (accessed 10 January 2018).

27.

Litman

(2018) Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs. Victoria, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

28.

Litman

(2018) Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits. Victoria, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

29.

(2009) Walkability: What is it? Journal of Urbanism 2(2): 145–166.

30.

Loo

BPY

Lam

WWY

(2012) Geographic accessibility around health care facilities for elderly residents in Hong Kong: A microscale walkability assessment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39(4): 629–646.

31.

Morland

Wing

Diez Roux

, et al. (2002) Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 22(1): 23–29.

32.

New York State Department of Health (2017) Obesity Prevention. Available from: https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/obesity/ (accessed 10 January 2018).

33.

Owen

Humpel

Leslie

, et al. (2004) Understanding environmental influences on walking. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27(1): 67–76.

34.

Park

(2008) Defining, measuring, and evaluating path walkability, and testing its impacts on transit users’ mode choice and walking distance to the station. doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.

35.

Powell

, Spears

Rebori

(2010) What is obesogenic environment? University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, Fact Sheet 10-11, pp.1–2. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension.

36.

Pribis

Burtnack

McKenzie

, et al. (2010) Trends in body fat, body mass index and physical fitness among male and female college students. Nutrients, Molecular Diversity Preservation International 2(10): 1075–1085.

37.

Princeton University (2008) 2016 campus plan. Available at: www.princeton.edu/pr/doc/2006-campus-plan.pdf (accessed 1 December 2017).

38.

Robinson

(1950) Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review 15(3): 351–357.

39.

Rundle

Neckerman

Freeman

, et al. (2009) Neighborhood food environment and walkability predict obesity in New York City. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(3): 442–447.

40.

Saaty

(1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resources Allocation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

41.

Saaty

(2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences 1(1): 83–98.

42.

Saelens

Handy

(2008) Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 40(7 Suppl): S550–S566.

43.

Selvin

(1958) Durkheim’s suicide and problems of empirical research. American Journal of Sociology 63(6): 607–619.

44.

Slater

Nicholson

Chriqui

, et al. (2013) Walkable communities and adolescent weight. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44(2): 164–168.

45.

Swinburn

Egger

Raza

(1999) Dissecting obesogenic environments: The development and application of a framework for identifying and prioritizing environmental interventions for obesity. Preventive Medicine 29(6): 563–570.

46.

Transportation Research Board (2010) HCM 2010: Highway Capacity Manual: Traffic Safety. 5th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

47.

University of Alabama (2012) The University of Alabama campus master plan. Available at: https://vpadmin-estus.fa.ua.edu/UniversitylandsPub/Campus Master Plan/2012 Master Plan Update.pdf (accessed 1 December 2017).

48.

Van Dyck

Cardon

Deforche

, et al. (2010) Neighborhood SES and walkability are related to physical activity behavior in Belgian adults. Preventive Medicine 50: S74–S79.

49.

Vargo

Stone

Glanz

(2012) Google walkability: A new tool for local planning and public health research? Journal of Physical Activity & Health 9(5): 689–97.

50.

Warburton

DER

Nicol

Bredin

SSD

(2006) Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. Canadian Medical Association Journal 174(6): 801–809.

51.

Yin

(2017) Street level urban design qualities for walkability: Combining 2D and 3D GIS measures. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 64: 288–296.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.33 MB

The perceived importance and objective measurement of walkability in the built environment rating

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material