Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Walkability is an important contributor to physical activity, aiding the prevention of chronic diseases. Decision makers rely on accurate, nuanced data to inform the planning of walkable communities. While objective walkability tools have variable capacity to predict walking behaviour, combining community perceptions with these tools can provide more nuanced insights, especially in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. This study explored the potential to apply a citizen science approach to monitor and improve walkability of socially diverse neighbourhoods by understanding the perspectives of key decision makers and practitioners.

Methods

Interviews with stakeholders from local councils, government health services, and a community volunteer group explored walkability in Western Sydney, including use and experiences of walkability assessment tools, and views on using citizen science for walkability monitoring and improvement. Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis.

Results

Participants saw a need to improve walkability in certain areas of Western Sydney, but identified insufficiencies with existing auditing tools. A citizen science approach was considered a promising means of capturing and addressing the multitude of factors influencing walkability, through its ability to provide nuanced and compelling local information. However, council staff had concerns about managing public expectations and attaining representation of the community’s diversity. Participants provided insights for possible avenues of effective and meaningful engagement.

Conclusion

If stakeholders’ concerns are addressed and supported by policy commitment, the adoption of a citizen science approach has potential to bring considerable value to the monitoring and improvement of walkability in socially diverse localities.

Keywords

walkability citizen science monitoring health inequalities health policy

Introduction

Physical inactivity is an established risk factor for multiple chronic diseases including diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular disease, and several types of cancer.¹ Concerningly, only 24% of Australians aged over 15 years meet physical activity guidelines, with higher rates of physical inactivity in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged regions (79.5%).¹

While the factors underpinning physical activity levels are multifaceted, there is compelling evidence demonstrating the importance of the built environment.^2–5 Walkability is a broad term that refers to how characteristics of the built environment and urban life influence physical activity.⁶ This includes physical factors such as proximity to amenities and transit, street connectivity, access to greenspaces, and pedestrian infrastructure, and broader factors such as safety, motivations for walking, and climate.⁶

While systematic review evidence consistently demonstrates that interventions aimed at enhancing walkability can lead to improvements in physical activity levels,⁷ there has been limited consideration of the impact of these interventions on reducing inequalities.^4,8,9 Some studies have identified promising impacts of walkability interventions on reducing health inequities.¹⁰ However, others have found that walkability interventions predominantly benefitted high income groups.^4,9 These inconsistent findings highlight a need for a more nuanced understanding of walkability in low-income communities, and a better understanding of the impacts of walkability interventions on inequalities and the mechanisms through which any effects are brought about.^8,9,11,12

Despite calls for more walkable communities, Australian cities (Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide) have been identified as some of the least walkable when compared with 22 others internationally.¹³ Moreover, access to walkable environments is lower in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas across Australia’s major cities.¹⁴ Shuvo et al¹⁵ examined the walkability and greenness of suburbs across the Sydney metropolitan area and found that most neighbourhoods of low walkability and low greenness were situated across Western Sydney, an area of higher socioeconomic disadvantage. This negative relationship between socioeconomic disadvantage and the walkability of suburbs mirrors findings from the U.S, Canada, and Colombia.^16–18

To enhance walkability, decision makers need accurate, local data about neighbourhood attributes that incorporate community perspectives.¹⁹ There are a myriad of established tools to assess walkability ranging from geographic information systems (GIS) which enable sophisticated spatial analysis, to in-depth auditing tools which capture street level characteristics.^20,21 However, there is evidence that commonly applied objective walkability assessment tools are not predictive of walking behaviour for certain populations, including women and low income communities.^22–24 This highlights a need for a more nuanced understanding of walkability in socioeconomically diverse communities. To address these concerns, some researchers have advocated for the use of tools that capture community perceptions of walkability (perceived walkability) rather than objective tools, particularly in low-income communities. Partnering with community members to collect local, nuanced data about neighbourhood walkability and integrating this data with objective measures of walkability has potential to inform the implementation of meaningful improvements to local environments.²⁵

In recent years, citizen science has gained traction in urban design as a means for community members to be involved in decisions which impact their local neighbourhoods and health status.^26–28 Citizen science is a form of participatory research that actively involves the public (known as “citizen scientists”) in the research process, including in identifying research priorities, collecting and/or interpreting evidence, sharing findings and advocating for solutions.²⁹ Internationally, citizen science approaches have demonstrated feasibility in engaging socioeconomically diverse communities to identify social and physical barriers to walking and cycling, resulting in the implementation of community-informed solutions to increase uptake of active travel.^30,31 In the Australian context, citizen science has demonstrated promise as a means of auditing the physical environment to identify community-led recommendations to enhance walkability in rural Tasmania.²⁸ The benefits of citizen science can also extend beyond policy and practice and lead to improvements in scientific and health literacy, social connectedness, and empowerment.²⁷ Therefore, citizen science has potential to provide a powerful mechanism for addressing key drivers of health inequity, particularly those which arise from the physical and social environment³² through the generation of nuanced local evidence, fostering awareness and trust in local government initiatives, and empowering the community to advocate for change.³³

Given the disparity that remains between the political rhetoric to create equitable access to healthy environments and the current state of walkability in Australia, there is a need for new approaches that bring together key decision makers, practitioners and community members to collaborate in tackling this persistent problem. While citizen science offers this promise, little is known about the perspectives of policy and practice stakeholders in relation to the utilisation of this community engagement method – an essential component of understanding the viability and sustainability of such an approach.³⁴ Therefore, this study aimed to firstly establish perceptions of local walkability, previous experiences with walkability auditing and monitoring, and subsequently explore the extent to which key decision makers and practitioners consider citizen science to be a feasible approach to monitoring and enhancing walkability in a socially diverse area of Sydney, Australia.

Method

An exploratory qualitative approach was adopted, utilising in-depth individual and small-group interviews. This study was conducted by researchers at The University of Sydney with the support of population health staff at Western Sydney Local Health District (WSLHD). Reporting has been guided by the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ).³⁵ Ethics approval was provided by The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee [Ref: 2021/887].

Setting

WSLHD is situated in the Sydney metropolitan area of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and varies broadly in urban density. The region consists of four local government areas and has a population of 1.08 million. Notably, 52.5% of residents were born overseas (higher than the national average of 33.1%),³⁶ and 58.3% of households speak a language other than English (higher than the national average of 24.8%).³⁶

Recruitment and Sampling

Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit key decision makers and practitioners who were identified with the assistance of project partners at WSLHD. These individuals were identified as having a responsibility as part of their role to enhancing walkability in Western Sydney-including staff from Local Health Districts and other health promotion agencies, local council staff working in town planning and community engagement, and not-for-profit organisations. Eligible participants were at least 18 years of age and English speaking. Invitees (n = 47) were identified and contacted by WSLHD between April and July 2022 over three rounds of email invitations and were asked to forward the invitation to other relevant people within their organisation. Recruitment continued until the resulting data were deemed to provide adequate richness and complexity to address the study aims.³⁷ All participants provided informed consent prior to participation.

Data Collection

A topic guide was developed to understand stakeholders’ contexts, explore their conceptualisation of walkability, perceptions of walkability in Western Sydney, experiences of monitoring walkability, and their interest and capacity use a citizen science approach to engage the public in monitoring and enhancing walkability (see Supplemental File 1). Although exploring participants’ perceptions on the feasibility of citizen science approaches were a key focus of these interviews, it was recognised that the term ‘citizen science’ may not be familiar to interview participants and that using this term may not allow for the capture of all activities that may be considered relevant. As such, interview participants were asked about approaches to ‘engaging the public’ in monitoring walkability as a proxy for ‘citizen science’. The topic guide included introductory questions designed to act as icebreakers. Follow-up prompts were used to seek clarification or further information.

Interviews were conducted online using video conferencing software by an experienced qualitative researcher (YL) and were audio recorded and later professionally transcribed by an external transcription service. Transcriptions were checked for accuracy by another team member (RL) prior to analysis. Interviews lasted 24 to 43 minutes (average = 38 minutes).

Data Analysis

As the research questions sought to understand the perspectives and experiences of participants, researchers took a constructionist, experiential, and predominantly inductive approach to analysis. Both semantic and latent coding were utilised to interpret explicit and implicit meanings of dialogue.

Analysis was guided by Braun, Clarke, Hayfield and Terry³⁸ six-phases of reflexive thematic analysis. Multiple team members (RL, YL, LC) read and reviewed three transcripts to code data and generate initial themes. The remaining transcripts were coded by one team member (RL). The initial coding was reviewed for consistency with later coding. As the codes and themes evolved, versions were captured, discussed, and reviewed by LC, YL, BS and EL. The ongoing nature of analysis informed subsequent data collection. This iterative process facilitated the construction of unique themes to achieve richer interpretations of meaning³⁹ – as opposed to restricting data analysis to preconceived categories. Coding and analysis were facilitated using NVivo 12 software.⁴⁰

Participants were provided with a report summarising the findings of this research and given the opportunity to provide feedback. No dissenting comments were received.

Results

Two group and eight individual interviews were conducted between April and July 2022. A total of thirteen interviewees across local council (n = 7), government health services (n = 5), and a community volunteer group (n = 1) participated (reported as P1-13).

Three themes were developed in relation to monitoring and enhancing walkability in Western Sydney: (1) perceptions of walkability; (2) the insufficiency of using walkability tools alone; and (3) the potential for a citizen science approach.

Perceptions of Walkability in Western Sydney

Participants identified a range of factors that influence walkability across Western Sydney, from large-scale regional planning to the specific safety and aesthetics of pedestrian routes. The built environment was most frequently discussed, followed by the natural environment, heat, and social and political factors. Participants noted that local government areas (LGAs) in Western Sydney vary widely, with more walkable high-density central business districts (CBDs) contrasting with less walkable rural developments. The walkability of CBDs and town centres was attributed to better-maintained and more accessible pedestrian infrastructure, including walkways, nature trails, lighting, and signage. Higher-density areas also offered a greater concentration of points-of-interest, which encouraged both active transport and walking for leisure. Conversely, participants highlighted how pedestrian routes alongside or across major roads were perceived as unsafe and uncomfortable, limiting their use.

“I would say that there are parts that have elements that are quite walkable (…) some green open spaces with nice paths and lighting and signage. And then there are other places which are absolutely unwalkable, they’re cut by major roads, you wait ages to cross – and I would say generally across [suburb name] it's hot.” P1, Government health service

Town centres situated along train lines were perceived as more walkable due to the integration of efficient public transport options, which in turn supported the development of shops, services, and amenities. The completion of the Metro North West Line in 2019, which introduced rapid transit rail to a historically car-dependent area, was felt to have notably increased walkability in the region – evident in the rising use of public transport by residents who previously relied on cars.

“…a lot of our centres are located on train lines and on stations (…) So the legacy of built form and urban outcomes in [suburb name] from the rail lines, and how the centres, the town centres and high streets are formed from there have given a really strong platform to facilitate walkability.” P8, Local council

“Well, there's a new Metro that’s in the area now, so that’s changed the way people can travel and get around, and the transport that is available for people.” P9, Local council

Participants noted that progressive planning practices, including careful consideration of pedestrian distances between key amenities and the width of pathways, had a positive impact on walkability. Nevertheless, participants felt that the expansive distances between essential locations in Western Sydney necessitated car travel.

“…the planning around new precincts and the progression and thinking of planning has progressed so much further than it was 40 years ago, 50 years ago. So, the older part of the cities or the mature part of the cities, probably the walkability isn't ideal.” P10, Local council

The heat in Western Sydney, along with limited tree canopy and artificial shelter, was seen to create an uncomfortable walking experience and pose a significant barrier to walkability.

“…shade was a real key factor for where people chose to go, which playgrounds they went, especially during hot days obviously a massive issue during summer in Western Sydney. So, there would be large numbers of parks with very poor tree shade and even if there was good shade at the park it would be way too hot to leave the house and go down the streets to find the park.” P4, Government health service

In contrast, participants across sectors acknowledged Western Sydney’s effective use of natural assets to enhance walkability. A participant from a community walking group described how local councils have worked together successfully to develop and maintain natural trails that connect multiple jurisdictions.

“People get a shock when they walk Western Sydney because – parts of it are very, very attractive. (…) Some of the councils, particularly [suburb name] have done a really good job in putting in walking routes along the old creeks.” P5, Community volunteer group

Most participants stressed the importance of approaching walkability through an equity lens, considering the cultural, social, and functional diversity of the Western Sydney population. It was a key priority to understand the differences influencing communities’ relationships, experiences, and barriers to walking, and how to meaningfully address these.

“Western Sydney is really diverse in cultures. In socio economic. In all sorts of things. So, the issues are really quite dependent on particular populations.” P6, Government health service

Two participants from government health services highlighted the additional support required to increase walking amongst new migrant and refugee communities, and the importance of initiatives that enhance perceptions of safety, social connection and belonging.

“We think that there's really scope for walking groups and participation in those there, so that’s something that we – if you can make their experience of being able to walk and be safe out there and in the neighbourhood and feel like they’re becoming part of the community, if that can happen for that group then those benefits will go across a whole population” P4, Government health service

Insufficiencies of Using Walkability Tools Alone

Participants had a general awareness of walkability assessment tools, although some had difficulty recalling details of specific tools and their functions. Council and government health service staff discussed their use of frameworks, such as Healthy Streets⁴¹ and Movement and Place,⁴² both at strategic and operational levels. These frameworks establish performance indicators for characteristics of the built environment, many of which impact walkability (e.g. access and connections, amenities, safety, and comfort). Participants described how these tools guided the planning, design, and management of transport networks and streetscapes. However, these tools tended to provide high-level measures at the suburb level, requiring supplementary assessments or site visits.

Other tools commonly used were large-scale GIS maps, which provided comprehensive data on canopy cover, urban heat, and heat susceptibility⁴³; and activity-based data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Travel Census, council-installed footfall and cycling traffic counters, and proprietary activity heatmaps. However, several participants highlighted that the GIS data lacked the granularity required to assess local-level conditions. Consequently, methods involving residents, which could capture nuanced information at the neighbourhood level, were felt to have more potential to support decision making and prioritisation.

“if people are walking that gives us a good indication of walkability, but often we don't have it down to the street level, the suburb level, if we’re lucky we’ll get it at an LGA level and then sometimes the data loses some of its power and so it's hard to give that more nuanced information” P1, Government health service

“… it can be a pretty invaluable source [community perspectives] because a lot of our time we’re just stuck at our desk, and we don’t get a chance to get out there. But the more on-the-ground sort of truths the better.” P11, Local council

Additionally, several participants queried the validity and accuracy of some walkability assessment tools and acknowledged that data from proprietary databases were non-generalisable.

“You can see traces of it [walking trail], because on [web mapping platform] you can see traces of a track through there. …They're not 100% accurate but they're there. So that gives us some inkling. But at the end of the day there is absolutely no alternative to ground truth.” P5, Community volunteer group

“I’ve even gone as far as looking at [brand name] heatmaps, noting that that’s – an active cohort and not, particularly indicative.” P1, Government health service

One participant described their use of surveys and checklists to audit the local streetscapes. However, the tools available for this effort were described as either too complicated for the average user, or as requiring some modifications which jeopardised the validity of results.

“…there were some elements of that tool where if the component was not applicable, we had to adjust the scoring to do that, and in the latest iteration of it they’ve removed the scoring altogether.” P1, Government health service

Several participants expressed that, with disparate sources of information, difficulty arose in identifying the most appropriate walkability assessment tools. Consequently, participants voiced a desire for a system to facilitate this selection process. In addition, participants sought tools that could provide data that assist with the monitoring and evaluation of walkability improvements in an ongoing manner.

“There's so many different sources of information, there's so many different challenges, (…) picking the most appropriate tool or the most appropriate indicator (…) almost being able to map them, (…) how can we monitor on an ongoing basis, what does it tell us in terms of what our impact is?” P2, Government health service

Potential Role of Citizen Science in - Monitoring and Improving Walkability

Participants unanimously recognised the fundamental importance of engaging community members in the planning and development stages of walkability projects. Benefits included empowering citizens, fostering community ownership, and generating the nuanced information required for decision making. However, the discussions also revealed several challenges, including concerns over limited funding and workforce capacity, as well as the management of community expectations.

All participants discussed how they involved members of the community in the planning and development stages of walkability projects. They highlighted how project proposals were open to the public for comment and feedback, enabling adjustments to be made to project design or prioritisation. This engagement was viewed as fundamental to the empowerment of citizens, helping to foster community ownership. While current engagement practices allow for public feedback, participants expressed a need to capture more diverse voices to fully reflect community priorities.

“So rather than preparing the whole of: here's a plan, this is where we're going to put the houses, where we're going to put the roads, what do you think? Like we're hoping to follow more of an approach early on that engages with the existing residents of what's important about the character of the centre that you like, what would you like to see improve? So, that's the approach that we would be hoping to follow there so that people don't see a final fait accompli.” P13, Local council

Participants consistently commented that community engagement enabled the collection of nuanced, relevant, and novel information about the local area. This nuanced feedback was particularly valued for highlighting site-specific challenges or needs that standardised walkability data collection methods might overlook.

“We love getting feedback from people because that's quite often how we find out that there's been a problem somewhere. (…) we're not locals everywhere in Sydney. (…) I've got to admit that I think 99.9% of the time they're right.” P5, Community volunteer group

“When we have surveyed the community for different projects, (…) and we have that local evidence and those quotes and things, Council value that. They’re more likely to listen to it because it's their community members, rather than, if it's a study pulled from another area or another LGA.” P3, Government health service

Participants stressed that the diversity in the population of Western Sydney meant that communities would have unique needs, expectations, and barriers when engaging with council initiatives. One participant described the stark difference in response rates between socioeconomic groups from traditional ‘have-your-say’ surveys. They emphasised that direct forms of engagement were more appropriate and successful in achieving greater representation from communities which have historically been disengaged with government processes.

“When we go to any consult, in any of the projects where I look after, generally the more engaged communities are the communities that have a higher socioeconomic status… Very rarely would I go into a school in ward one where they got more money generally but in ward five, I'll go engage with those schools specifically.” P10, Local council

Participants recognised that a citizen science approach could improve the comprehensiveness and relevance of the data collected compared to current practices of engagement. However, they also voiced concerns that these methods could also unintentionally amplify certain voices, potentially skewing findings or overlooking less vocal groups.

“Particularly in this area, you'd need to look at pram and wheelchair and people with access and mobility issues. You'd have to look at their point of view, because they're the ones that would have more challenges.” P9, Local council

“I think the key challenge there is that when you're engaging on that, you're engaging with the people that are invested in having financial outcomes.” P13, Local council

“Quite often in these precincts we're engaging, the people that we are talking to aren't the people who are going to be there in 20 years’ time. Having to live there, having to utilize the infrastructure, having to live with the outcome of these planning decisions.” P12, Local council

Nearly all participants stated that limited availability of funding was a regular challenge for large-scale community engagement efforts. Two participants underscored that adequate funding not only expands engagement opportunities but enhances the depth of community participation and feedback.

“I was thinking about the [project name] – the good thing about that is because there was funds allocated to that area, so there – they knew in advance that they’re going to be delivering to the community in a staged approach, build infrastructure improvements, but they have engaged the community so comprehensively…” P2, Government health service

“And I would say that’s the same for [council name] - that where they have a project that’s funded and they know they can deliver something the community engagement is great.” P1, Government health service

Nevertheless, participants recognised that engaging members of the public as citizen scientists could significantly increase capacity to monitor walkability, and subsequently save on costs.

“And if we could outsource that [monitoring] to the citizens then that would be a pretty incredible way to get that done more broadly across the LGA because those things can be quite expensive engaging consultants to undertake that.” P11, Local council

When considering the potential utilisation of a citizen science approach, the topic of managing community expectations was commonly discussed by participants working in councils and government health services. There was a perception that tangible changes were expected by community members, once they were engaged. Council staff were particularly cognisant of this, as the consultation, planning, and implementation of projects could extend over lengthy periods. Moreover, participants highlighted that community engagement during the formative process may not necessarily eventuate into actionable plans.

“I think it’s a bit of trepidation for it to get out of hand sometimes where you’re having to manage quite a lot of people and for it to get side-tracked by other issues. It’s quite hard to keep people focused … and this stuff takes quite a long time. But there are definitely pockets of the community which are like super engaged and super aware of the issues. … And there’s sometimes the trepidation of not having the plan or the project fully developed and for it to be pretty raw. Like a lot of the time, we want to have it pretty much ready and finalised.” P11, Local council

One participant suggested that allowing citizen scientists to engage in different ways could help to sustain ongoing engagement during longer projects.

“I think there's got to be multiple ways for people to get involved, not just a single method. And it is really good to have an open – a way of different levels of engagement so that people can do a little or do a lot. And that if people are really revved up about something they will participate. … So, ways of buoying people up as things are slowly changing and keeping them connected is really important.” P4, Government health service

Discussion

Our research highlights the broad perceptions of walkability and diverse ways it is operationalised by stakeholders. This is consistent with the wider literature which describes multiple definitions and methods of assessing walkability.^6,44 This complexity poses a challenge for stakeholders who require timely, high-quality, representative data to determine appropriate improvements for their communities.

While GIS tools have enabled increasingly sophisticated spatial analyses of the physical environment,^{6,14,15,17,45} participants raised concerns that these data did not always provide the granularity required to assess local conditions, compared with information collected at the neighbourhood level. Street-level auditing tools provide an opportunity to capture “on-the-ground truths”. However, were seen as labour intensive for staff and difficult for volunteers to use. Involving community members through citizen science initiatives could support data collection at the neighbourhood level, making the process more sustainable and inclusive. Crucially, GIS and auditing tools were regarded as failing to capture the diverse needs and perspectives of local community^32,46—a limitation that citizen science efforts might address by engaging these groups directly. Such an approach could support advocacy for funding and projects that improve equitable access to healthy environments, particularly for socioeconomically diverse populations.

Participants in this study expressed a strong conviction that public servants bore the responsibility to ensure meaningful community engagement in the decisions that shaped their neighbourhood. Local council staff aspired to employ earlier and more inclusive engagement strategies to identify community priorities. However, participants describe several barriers that prevent these being translated into political will and tangible action. These findings highlight a gap between current methods of assessment and engagement – which are often limited in scope and depth – and the robust, community-centred approaches that participants view as essential. Given these constraints, alternative approaches are necessary to foster more comprehensive community engagement while remaining practical to implement.

Citizen science approaches, by involving community members directly, can generate nuanced and impactful data that enhances pedestrian infrastructure.^30,31,47 However, several participants expressed concerns about the limited funding and workforce available to implement such endeavours. Past studies^48,49 have shown that engaging citizen scientists is no more expensive than traditional methods of research, and that much of the uncalculated value derived from citizen science approaches arises from social mobilisation and empowerment. Additionally, engaging community members can multiply the workforce capacity by crowdsourcing the data collection and analysis process. Despite these advantages, a cautious approach is warranted as there is the potential for unpaid labour to be exploited under the guise of citizen science.⁵⁰ Nevertheless, the inclusion of citizens in the research development process provides an opportunity to establish expectations about the conduct and governance of the project.

Participants also discussed the complexities that arose with managing community expectations and the perceived challenges of not being able to maintain control of project scope and development. Citizen science, fundamentally, represents a decentralisation of traditional knowledge and power structures.⁵¹ The idea of ceding control can be uncomfortable and difficult when working within established operational models. Similarly, the citizen scientists who capture walkability data are not necessarily the stewards of this data, nor may they have control of how it is used in decision making processes.⁵² These responsibilities are traditionally held by local government officials, who have greater institutional resources and power. In this current arrangement, complications could arise when these parties have differing priorities. For examples, involved citizens may have a focal interest in new amenities, while local governments will need to manage multiple competing interests and duties. It is, therefore, important that if there is a decentralisation of labour (from government to citizens), that there is also a concurrent translation of authority over how this data is utilised. Distributed forms of leadership may be required to ensure that these various perspectives are received and acted upon.⁵³ This might involve local governments strengthening relationships with citizen engagement organisations or consumer advisory panels to create pathways for citizens to engage with decision makers.³³

Participants in this study raised valid concerns that citizen science projects could reinforce existing patterns of exclusion already present through a biased self-selection process, which tends to favour involvement by those with greater capacity or financial investment in the outcomes of a project. This finding is in line with the broader literature, which calls for project stakeholders to actively address the conditions and barriers faced by socioeconomically diverse populations to participate in citizen science projects.^50,54–56 Project engagement may pose a greater challenge for lower-income families, or those with multiple jobs or limited transport options.⁵⁷ Financial compensation has been proposed as a way to reduce barriers, increase data quality, and sustain engagement of citizen scientists from diverse communities.⁵⁵ For others, the opportunity to learn, or receive personal or academic recognition may be a more meaningful incentive.⁵⁵ Importantly, projects that have explicitly considered equitable representation across language, socioeconomic, and life-stage population segments have demonstrated that this approach can be an effective means of engaging and empowering diverse communities.^30–32 Recruitment and engagement strategies will need to identify the community for which the project is relevant to ensure that they are appropriately represented.

Additionally, it must be recognised that the poor execution of citizen science approaches can have negative impacts on communities. This includes the overburdening of the public; potential health and safety issues; a decentralisation of risk and responsibility from government to the public; and an erosion of social capital.⁴⁶ Several authors outline frameworks and considerations to avoid these detrimental outcomes. Pandya⁵⁷ proposes the process of (1) aligning research opportunities with community priorities; (2) establishing project co-management arrangements; (3) engaging the community in each step; (4) recognising and incorporating multiple forms of knowledge; and (5) ensuring that the findings are disseminated widely. Pierce⁵⁸ stresses that projects working with disadvantaged populations should be explicitly equity promoting to interrupt pathways which may lead to health inequities in citizen science projects. Hoverd et al⁵⁹ recommend increasing the presence of researchers in the community, improving the cultural competency of stakeholders, reducing the complexity of correspondence, and providing additional support to adapt processes accordingly for the community.

Key decision makers and practitioners are presented with a significant opportunity to leverage citizen science in future walkability assessment and improvement projects. By combining existing standardized methods of data collection with the nuanced, community-driven insights gained through citizen science, practitioners can gather a comprehensive picture of walkability that captures both broad trends and local specificities. This dual approach not only strengthens intelligence gathering but also ensures that projects are relevant and meaningful to those they aim to serve. For decision makers, integrating citizen science from the outset can establish a more inclusive foundation, aligning project priorities with community needs from the beginning. However, operational challenges raised by participants in this study highlight the need for robust engagement frameworks and capacity building to ensure that these initiatives are equitable, empowering, and sustainable.

It is recognised that the opinions of participants in this study reflect local working cultures and arrangements, which could vary between regions and organisations. Secondly, while individuals from private organisations (e.g. land developers) were invited, none participated in this research. The perspectives of these organisations could have provided further and differing insights into walkability improvement. Clark et al⁶⁰ found that private developers in Canada did not consider it their responsibility to develop highly walkable neighbourhoods unless necessitated by legislation and compelled by consumer demand. However, given the broad representation and support from the public sector in our study, the perspectives of key decision makers are believed to have been appropriately captured. This study has focused on the perspectives of key decision makers and practitioners, as their support and adaptability are essential to the integration of citizen science into current systems. However, future work should explore perspectives of community members and examine strategies that could support or hinder community engagement in such projects.

Conclusion

Citizen science represents a valuable opportunity to engage with socioeconomically diverse communities in monitoring, evaluating, and improving the walkability of their neighbourhoods. Findings from this study highlight the challenges that key decision makers face in gathering accurate and actionable data about walkability in local regions. Citizen science has the potential to address these gaps by capturing community-driven insights that illustrate how walkability varies for different groups – an aspect not captured by traditional high-level assessments. When used in conjunction with established tools such as GIS mapping and validated surveys, citizen science offers a more nuanced view of local conditions, enabling a richer understanding of on-the-ground realities. While stakeholders are receptive to applying citizen science approaches to enhance walkability, concerns remain around ensuring comprehensive representation and managing community expectations.

Moving forward, successful implementation will require thoughtful strategies to address these challenges, including shifts in organisational culture and ways of working. Investment in capacity building and the development of community engagement infrastructure are necessary to support these efforts to ensure that these efforts are sustainable and pave the way for equitable, community-centred planning outcomes.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material - Exploring the Potential to Use Citizen Science to Monitor and Improve Walkability of Socially Diverse Neighbourhoods

Supplemental Material for Exploring the Potential to Use Citizen Science to Monitor and Improve Walkability of Socially Diverse Neighbourhoods by Roger Lay, Leonie Cranney, Elizabeth Leece, Ben J Smith, Samantha Rowbotham and Yvonne Laird in Community Health Equity Research & Policy

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the study participants for their contributions to this research.

ORCID iDs

Leonie Cranney

Elizabeth Leece

Yvonne Laird

Ethical Consideration

Ethics approval was provided by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee [Ref: 2021/887].

Consent to Participate

All participants provided informed consent prior to participation.

Author contributions

YL and SR conceptualised the study. YL conducted the interviews. RL, YL and LC reviewed transcripts and generated initial themes. These were reviewed and discussed by LC, YL, BS and EL. All authors contributed to the initial drafting and review of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research received seed funding from the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre. The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre is funded by the NHMRC, Australian Government Department of Health, ACT Health, Cancer Council Australia, NSW Ministry of Health, Wellbeing SA, Tasmanian Department of Health, and VicHealth (Grant ID: GNT9100003). The Australian Government has also contributed funding through the Medical Research Future Fund. In 2022, Queensland Health joined the Prevention Centre as a financial contributor and valued partner. The Prevention Centre is administered by the Sax Institute. The funders had no role in study design, data collection or analysis, writing of the article, or decision to submit the article for publication.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from University of Sydney, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of University of Sydney.*

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Roger Lay is a project offcer within NSW Health. His research interest include physical activity, disease prevention, and the urban environment. Lay holds a Bachelor of Applied Science (Physiotherapy), and a Master of Public Health (Disease Prevention) from the University of Sydney.

Dr Leonie Cranney is a Senior Evaluation Specialist at Cancer Council NSW. She has extensive experience conducting applied population health research and evaluation in academic, public sector, and nonprofit settings. Her work has informed chronic disease and cancer prevention policy, practice and research.

Elizabeth Leece is a Health Promotion Officer in the Centre for Population Health, Western Sydney Local Health District.Her interests centre on enhancing population health by shaping built and natural environments that facilitate healthy eating, active lifestyles, and overall wellbeing.

Ben J. Smith, PhD, is Professor of Public Health within the Prevention Research Collaboration in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. He has an extensive track record of applied research in partnership with government and non-government health agencies, which has informed policies and programs to address chronic disease, physical inactivity, social isolation and loneliness, and health inequities.

Dr Samantha Rowbotham is a Senior Research Manager (Senior Research Fellow) in the Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University. Sam's research interests centre around public engagement in health research and decision making as a means of increasing the relevance and uptake of evidence into policy and practice. She is particularly interested in partnership research and has worked closely with a range of stakeholders from policy and practice settings to co-design and conduct research.

Dr Yvonne Laird is a Lecturer in Prevention and Health Promotion at the University of Sydney, based in the Prevention Research Collaboration. Her research focuses on the role of public engagement in chronic disease prevention research and policy.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics . Physical activity, 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/physical-activity/latest-release (Accessed 14 November 2024).

Rutter

Cavill

Bauman

, et al. Systems approaches to global and national physical activity plans. Bull World Health Organ 2019; 97: 162–165. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.18.220533

Dixon

Ugwoaba

Brockmann

, et al. Associations between the built environment and dietary intake, physical activity, and obesity: a scoping review of reviews. Obes Rev 2021; 22(4): e13171. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13171

Smith

Hosking

Woodward

, et al. Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activ 2017; 14(1): 158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0613-9

Christie

Consoli

Ronksley

, et al. Associations between the built environment and physical activity among adults with low socio-economic status in Canada: a systematic review. Can J Public Health 2021; 112(1): 152–165. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-020-00364-9

Shields

Gomes Da Silva

Lima

, et al. Walkability: a review of trends. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 2021: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1936601

Hunter

Christian

Veitch

, et al. The impact of interventions to promote physical activity in urban green space: a systematic review and recommendations for future research. Soc Sci Med 2015; 124: 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.051

Pearce

Maddison

. Do enhancements to the urban built environment improve physical activity levels among socially disadvantaged populations? Int J Equity Health 2011; 10(1): 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-10-28

Adkins

Makarewicz

Scanze

, et al.

Contextualizing walkability: do relationships between built environments and walking vary by socioeconomic context?

J Am Plann Assoc 2017; 83(3): 296–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2017.1322527

10.

Loh

VHY

Rachele

Brown

, et al. The potential for walkability to narrow neighbourhood socioeconomic inequalities in physical function: a case study of middle-aged to older adults in Brisbane, Australia. Health Place 2019; 56: 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.01.020

11.

Inglis

Archibald

Doi

, et al.

Credibility of subgroup analyses by socioeconomic status in public health intervention evaluations: an underappreciated problem?

SSM Popul Health 2018; 6: 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.09.010

12.

Althoff

Sosič

Hicks

, et al. Large-scale physical activity data reveal worldwide activity inequality. Nature 2017; 547(7663): 336–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23018

13.

Boeing

Higgs

Liu

, et al. Using open data and open-source software to develop spatial indicators of urban design and transport features for achieving healthy and sustainable cities. The Lancet Global Health; 10: e907–e918.

14.

Giles-Corti

Saghapour

Turrell

, et al.

Spatial and socioeconomic inequities in liveability in Australia’s 21 largest cities: does city size matter?

Health Place 2022; 78: 102899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102899

15.

Shuvo

Mazumdar

Labib

. Walkability and greenness do not walk together: investigating associations between greenness and walkability in a large Metropolitan City context. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2021; 18(9): 4429. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094429

16.

Conderino

Feldman

Spoer

, et al. Social and economic differences in neighborhood walkability across 500 U.S. cities. Article. Am J Prev Med 2021; 61(3): 394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.03.014

17.

Doiron

Setton

Shairsingh

, et al. Healthy built environment: spatial patterns and relationships of multiple exposures and deprivation in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Environ Int 2020; 143: 106003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106003

18.

Arellana

Alvarez

Oviedo

, et al. Walk this way: pedestrian accessibility and equity in Barranquilla and Soledad, Colombia. Res Transport Econ 2021; 86: 101024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.101024

19.

Armstrong

Waters

Moore

, et al. Understanding evidence: a statewide survey to explore evidence-informed public health decision-making in a local government setting. Implement Sci 2014; 9(1): 188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0188-7

20.

The Australian urban observatory. RMIT University. https://auo.org.au/

21.

The heart foundation community walkability checklist. https://walking.heartfoundation.org.au/resources/community-walkability-checklist

22.

Shashank

Schuurman

. Unpacking walkability indices and their inherent assumptions. Health Place 2019; 55: 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.12.005

23.

Golan

Wilkinson

Henderson

, et al. Gendered walkability: building a daytime walkability index for women. Journal of Transport and Land Use 2019; 12(1). https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1472

24.

Rodrigue

El-Geneidy

Manaugh

. Sociodemographic matters: analyzing interactions of individuals' characteristics with walkability when modelling walking behavior. J Transport Geogr 2024; 114: 103788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103788

25.

De Vos

Lättman

van der Vlugt

A-L

, et al. Determinants and effects of perceived walkability: a literature review, conceptual model and research agenda. Transp Rev 2022; 43: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2022.2101072

26.

Cappa

Franco

Rosso

. Citizens and cities: leveraging citizen science and big data for sustainable urban development. Bus Strat Environ 2022; 31(2): 648–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2942

27.

Marks

Laird

Trevena

, et al. A scoping review of citizen science approaches in chronic disease prevention. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 743348. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.743348

28.

Jose

Rowbotham

Laird

, et al. Piloting a citizen science approach to auditing rural walkability in Tasmania. Health Promot J Austral. 2025; 36(1): e936. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.936

29.

English

Richardson

Garzón-Galvis

. From crowdsourcing to extreme citizen science: participatory research for environmental health. Annu Rev Publ Health 2018; 39: 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013702

30.

Rosas

Salvo

Winter

, et al. Harnessing technology and citizen science to support neighborhoods that promote active living in Mexico. J Urban Health 2016; 93(6): 953–973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-016-0081-6

31.

Rodriguez

Arce

Kawaguchi

, et al. Enhancing safe routes to school programs through community-engaged citizen science: two pilot investigations in lower density areas of Santa Clara County, California, USA. BMC Public Health 2019; 19(1): 256. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6563-1

32.

Rosas

Rodriguez Espinosa

Montes Jimenez

, et al. The role of citizen science in promoting health equity. Annu Rev Publ Health 2022; 43(1): 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102856

33.

Rowbotham

McKinnon

Leach

, et al.

Does citizen science have the capacity to transform population health science?

Crit Public Health 2019; 29(1): 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2017.1395393

34.

Whelan

Love

Pettman

, et al. Cochrane update: predicting sustainability of intervention effects in public health evidence: identifying key elements to provide guidance. J Public Health 2014; 36(2): 347–351. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdu027

35.

Tong

Sainsbury

Craig

. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19(6): 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

36.

ABS Quickstats . 2021 census. https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/search-by-area

37.

Braun

Clarke

. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 2021; 13(2): 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1704846

38.

Braun

Clarke

Hayfield

, et al. Thematic analysis. Springer, 2019, pp. 843–860.

39.

Byrne

. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quantity 2022; 56(3): 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y

40.

NVivo

(released in March 2020). 2020. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

41.

Transport for London . Healthy streets for London. Prioritising walking, cycling and public transport to create a healthy city [online], 2017. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/healthy-streets-for-london.pdf

42.

A guide to evaluating built environment projects and plans that balance movement and place in NSW (Transport for NSW) (2020).

43.

SEED portal. NSW government. https://www.seed.nsw.gov.au/, (Accessed 28 Feb, 2023).

44.

Tobin

Hajna

Orychock

, et al. Rethinking walkability and developing a conceptual definition of active living environments to guide research and practice. BMC Public Health 2022; 22(1): 450. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12747-3

45.

Boeing

Higgs

Liu

, et al. Using open data and open-source software to develop spatial indicators of urban design and transport features for achieving healthy and sustainable cities. Lancet Global Health 2022; 10(6): e907–e918. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00072-9

46.

Walker

Smigaj

Tani

. The benefits and negative impacts of citizen science applications to water as experienced by participants and communities. WIREs Water 2021; 8(1): e1488. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1488

47.

Schlossberg

Johnson-Shelton

Evers

, et al. Refining the grain: using resident-based walkability audits to better understand walkable urban form. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 2015; 8(3): 260–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.990915

48.

Somerwill

Wehn

. How to measure the impact of citizen science on environmental attitudes, behaviour and knowledge? A review of state-of-the-art approaches. Environ Sci Eur 2022; 34(1): 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00596-1

49.

Fauver

. Is citizen science worth it? Economic decision of natural resource managers. Colorado State University, 2016.

50.

Resnik

Elliott

Miller

. A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science. Environ Sci Pol 2015; 54: 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.008

51.

Irwin

. Citizen science and scientific citizenship: same words, different meanings. Science Communication Today 2015; 2015: 29–38.

52.

Cooper

Rasmussen

Jones

. Perspective: The Power (Dynamics) of Open Data in Citizen Science. Frontiers in Climate 2021; 3: 637037. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.637037

53.

Best

Greenhalgh

Lewis

, et al. Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review. Milbank Q 2012; 90(3): 421–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00670.x

54.

Fiske

Prainsack

Buyx

. Meeting the needs of underserved populations: setting the agenda for more inclusive citizen science of medicine. J Med Ethics 2019; 45(9): 617–622. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105253

55.

Smith

Bélisle-Pipon

Resnik

. Patients as research partners; how to value their perceptions, contribution and labor? Citiz Sci. 2019; 4(1): 10. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.184

56.

Allf

Cooper

Larson

, et al. Citizen science as an ecosystem of engagement: implications for learning and broadening participation. Bioscience 2022; 72(7): 651–663. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac035

57.

Pandya

. A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Front Ecol Environ 2012; 10(6):314-317. https://doi.org/10.1890/120007

58.

Pierce

. Interrupting pathways to health inequities in citizen science health research. Health Promot Int 2022; 37(Supplement_2): ii21–ii34. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daac032

59.

Hoverd

Hawker-Bond

Staniszewska

, et al. Factors influencing decisions about whether to participate in health research by people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds: a realist review. BMJ Open 2022; 12(5): e058380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058380

60.

Clark

Berry

Spence

, et al. Key stakeholder perspectives on the development of walkable neighbourhoods. Health Place 2010; 16(1): 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.08.001

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

0.54 MB