Promoting walking trips is considered a key element of achieving more sustainable transportation. This paper presents a new index for measuring walkability in metropolitan areas. This index measures walkability levels for diversity and intensity of uses in spatial areas while considering the travel distance and time as travel impedance between origins and destinations. A walking access index (WAI), which is a location-based measure for accessibility, is formulated for quantifying accessibility within local areas in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Geographic information system software was employed to compute distances between origins and destinations. The Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA) was used to evaluate the new index and examine the association between walking trips and levels of accessibility within the metropolitan region of Melbourne. Furthermore, the new index is compared with one of the most common approaches using the VISTA data set. Key findings indicate that the WAI has a stronger association with recorded walking trips, with more walking trips recorded in areas with higher values of the WAI.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PrattM., MaceraC. A., SallisJ. F., O’DonnellM., and FrankL. D.. Economic Interventions to Promote Physical Activity: Application of the SLOTH Model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2004, pp. 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.015.
2.
SaelensB. E., SallisJ. F., BlackJ. B., and ChenD.. Neighborhood-Based Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9, 2003, pp. 1552–1558. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1552.
3.
EwingR., and CerveroR.. Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766.
4.
Neighbourhood Planning and Design. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2009.
FrankL. D., SallisJ. F., SaelensB. E., LearyL., CainK., ConwayT. L., and HessP. M.. The Development of a Walkability Index: Application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 44, No. 13, 2010, pp. 924–933. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.058701.
7.
FrankL. D., AndresenM. A., and SchmidT. L.. Obesity Relationships with Community Design, Physical Activity, and Time Spent in Cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004, pp. 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.04.011.
8.
EwingR., SchmidT., KillingsworthR., ZlotA., and RaudenbushS.. Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity. American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2003, pp. 47–57. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-18.1.47.
9.
OwenN., CerinE., LeslieE., duToitL., CoffeeN., FrankL. D., BaumanA. E., HugoG., SaelensB. E., and SallisJ. F.. Neighborhood Walkability and the Walking Behavior of Australian Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2007, pp. 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.07.025.
10.
MansonJ. E., HuF. B., Rich-EdwardsJ. W., ColditzG. A., StampferM. J., WillettW. C., SpeizerF. E., and HennekensC. H.. A Prospective Study of Walking as Compared with Vigorous Exercise in the Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in Women. New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 341, No. 9, 1999, pp. 650–658. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199908263410904.
11.
HayashiT., TsumuraK., SuematsuC., OkadaK., FujiiS., and EndoG.. Walking to Work and the Risk for Hypertension in Men: The Osaka Health Survey. Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 131, No. 1, 1999, pp. 21–26. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-131-1-199907060-00005.
12.
DingD., and GebelK.. Built Environment, Physical Activity, and Obesity: What Have We Learned from Reviewing the Literature?Health and Place, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2012, pp. 100–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.08.021.
13.
BaumanA. E., ReisR. S., SallisJ. F., WellsJ. C., LoosR. J. F., and MartinB. W.. Correlates of Physical Activity: Why Are Some People Physically Active and Others Not?Lancet, Vol. 380, No. 9838, 2012, pp. 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1.
14.
ManaughK., and El-GeneidyA.. Validating Walkability Indices: How Do Different Households Respond to the Walkability of Their Neighborhood?Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2011, pp. 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.01.009.
15.
WangD., ChaiY., and LiF.. Built Environment Diversities and Activity–Travel Behaviour Variations in Beijing, China. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1173–1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.03.008.
16.
DannenbergA. L., JacksonR. J., FrumkinH., SchieberR. A., PrattM., KochtitzkyC., and TilsonH. H.. The Impact of Community Design and Land-Use Choices on Public Health: A Scientific Research Agenda. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9, 2003, pp. 1500–1508. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1500.
17.
FrankL., EngelkeP., and SchmidT.. Health and Community Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on Physical Activity. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2003.
18.
Lavizzo-MoureyR., and McGinnisJ. M.. Making the Case for Active Living Communities. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9, 2003, pp. 1386–1388. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1386.
19.
LeeJ.-S., NamJ., and LeeS.-S.. Built Environment Impacts on Individual Mode Choice: An Empirical Study of the Houston-Galveston Metropolitan Area. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 8, No. 6, 2014, pp. 447–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2012.716142.
20.
BoarnetM. G.A Broader Context for Land Use and Travel Behavior, and a Research Agenda. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 77, No. 3, 2011, pp. 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2011.593483.
HoogendoornS. P., BovyP., and DaamenW.. Walking Infrastructure Design Assessment by Continuous Space Dynamic Assignment Modeling. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2004, pp. 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.5670380106.
23.
CerveroR., and DuncanM.. Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9, 2003, pp. 1478–1483. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1478.
DuncanD. T., AldstadtJ., WhalenJ., MellyS. J., and GortmakerS. L.. Validation of Walk Score® for Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An Analysis of Four US Metropolitan Areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 8, No. 12, 2011, pp. 4160–4179. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8114160.
26.
CarrL. J., DunsigerS. I., and MarcusB. H.. Walk Score™ as a Global Estimate of Neighborhood Walkability. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2010, pp. 460–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.07.007.
27.
FrankL. D., SchmidT. L., SallisJ. F., ChapmanJ., and SaelensB. E.. Linking Objectively Measured Physical Activity with Objectively Measured Urban Form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2005, pp. 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.11.001.
28.
FrankL. D., SallisJ. F., ConwayT. L., ChapmanJ. E., SaelensB. E., and BachmanW.. Many Pathways from Land Use to Health: Associations Between Neighborhood Walkability and Active Transportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 1, 2006, pp. 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976725.
29.
PeiravianF., DerribleS., and IjazF.. Development and Application of the Pedestrian Environment Index (PEI). Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 39, 2014, pp. 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.020.
30.
Giles-CortiB., MacaulayG., MiddletonN., BoruffB., BullF., ButterworthI., BadlandH., MavoaS., RobertsR., and ChristianH.. Developing a Research and Practice Tool to Measure Walkability: A Demonstration Project. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2014, pp. 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1071/HE14050.
31.
SundquistK., ErikssonU., KawakamiN., SkogL., OhlssonH., and ArvidssonD.. Neighborhood Walkability, Physical Activity, and Walking Behavior: The Swedish Neighborhood and Physical Activity (SNAP) Study. Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 72, No. 8, 2011, pp. 1266–1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.004.
32.
Road Network - Vicmap Transport. Information Services Division, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victoria, Australia, 2012. https://www.data.vic.gov.au.
33.
Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA). Department of Transport, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2009. http://www5.transport.vic.gov.au/.
34.
AuthoritiesT. (ed.). Austroads, Application of Accessibility Measures. Report AP-R397-11. Austroads, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2011.
35.
Accessibility Planning Guidance. Department for Transport, London.
36.
MillwardH., SpinneyJ., and ScottD.. Active-Transport Walking Behavior: Destinations, Durations, Distances. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 28, 2013, pp. 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.11.012.
37.
RattanA., CampeseA., and EdenC.. Modeling Walkability. ArcUser, Winter2012, pp. 30–33.
38.
RendallS., PageS., ReitsmaF., Van HoutenE., and KrumdieckS.. Quantifying Transport Energy Resilience: Active Mode Accessibility. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2242, 2011, pp. 72–80. https://doi.org/10.3141/2242-09.
39.
EspadaI., BennettP.., GreenD., and HatchD.. Development of the Accessibility-Based Network Operations Planning Framework. Austroads, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2015.
40.
EspadaI., and LukJ.. Application of Accessibility Measures. Austroads, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2011.
41.
Measuring Public Transport Accessibility Levels. Transport for London, London, 2010.
42.
BrewerC. A., and PickleL.. Evaluation of Methods for Classifying Epidemiological Data on Choropleth Maps in Series. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 92, No. 4, 2002, pp. 662–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.00310.
43.
SinnottR., et al. Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network. 2011.
44.
LamíquizP. J., and López-DomínguezJ.. Effects of Built Environment on Walking at the Neighbourhood Scale. A New Role for Street Networks by Modelling Their Configurational Accessibility?Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 74, 2015, pp. 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.003.
KimS., ParkS., and LeeJ. S.. Meso- or micro-scale? Environmental Factors Influencing Pedestrian Satisfaction. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 30, 2014, pp. 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.005.
47.
RandallT. A., and BaetzB. W.. Evaluating Pedestrian Connectivity for Suburban Sustainability. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 127, No. 1, 2001, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2001)127:1(1).
