The association between sidewalk length and walking for different purposes in established neighborhoods

Abstract

BackgroundWalking in neighborhood environments is undertaken for different purposes including for transportation and leisure. We examined whether sidewalk availability was associated with participation in, and minutes of neighborhood-based walking for transportation (NWT) and recreation (NWR) after controlling for neighborhood self-selection.MethodBaseline survey data from respondents (n = 1813) who participated in the RESIDential Environment (RESIDE) project (Perth, Western Australia) were used. Respondents were recruited based on their plans to move to another neighborhood in the following year. Usual weekly neighborhood-based walking, residential preferences, walking attitudes, and demographics were measured. Characteristics of the respondent’s baseline neighborhood were measured including transportation-related walkability and sidewalk length. A Heckman two-stage modeling approach (multivariate Probit regression for walking participation, followed by a sample selection-bias corrected OLS regression for walking minutes) estimated the relative contribution of sidewalk length to NWT and NWR.ResultsAfter adjustment, neighborhood sidewalk length and walkability were positively associated with a 2.97 and 2.16 percentage point increase in the probability of NWT participation, respectively. For each 10 km increase in sidewalk length, NWT increased by 5.38 min/wk and overall neighborhood-based walking increased by 5.26 min/wk. Neighborhood walkability was not associated with NWT or NWR minutes. Moreover, sidewalk length was not associated with NWR minutes.ConclusionsSidewalk availability in established neighborhoods may be differentially associated with walking for different purposes. Our findings suggest that large investments in sidewalk construction alone would yield small increases in walking.

Translating active living research into policy and practice: One important pathway to chronic disease prevention

“…31 An approach that considers the combined benefits for health from investments in walking, cycling, and other transportation infrastructure could be used when calculating the economic impacts of these investments. 32,33 Studies appear in leading health journals (for example, The Lancet), 34 are now creating a growing body of literature on the economics of investing in cycling infrastructure, 35 sidewalks, 36 and more walkable environments.…”

The Relationship between the Neighborhood Built Environment and Active Transportation among Adults: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Two studies [30,64] found inconsistent results when using different analyzed geographic units. Five studies [25,30,42,58,62] found inconsistent results when using different measurements of AT. One study [48] found inconsistent relationships between land use mix and walking to different destinations.…”

“…Residential density [30] • Parcel level density was positively related to the frequency of walking for transport and not related to the participation in walking for transport • Area level density was not related to the frequency of walking for transport and negatively related to the participation in walking for transport Land use mix [48] • Land use mix was positively related to walking for errands • Land use mix was not related to walking to work/school Street connectivity [64] • 500-m buffer: street connectivity was positively related to walking for transport • 1000-m buffer: street connectivity was not related to walking for transport Walkability [25] • Walkability was positively related to the participation in walking for transport • Walkability was not related to the duration of walking for transport [42] • Walkability was positively related to the frequency of walking for transport • Walkability was not related to the duration of walking for transport Bicycle lane [61] • Bicycle lane was not related to cycling for transport • Bicycle network connectivity was positively related to cycling for transport Table 9. Cont.…”

“…Because the majority of the selected studies used cross-sectional data, this assessment tool was adapted to assess four components regarding the studies' methodological quality: response rate, representativeness, outcome measures, and confounding factors (further description presented in Table 3). Under assessment of confounding factors, self-selection adjustment was added as a criterion, as it might affect the accuracy of the result regarding the relationship between the built environment and physical activity [14,25]. Generally, self-selection means that people who like to be physically active tend to choose to live in a neighborhood that can better support physical activity [25].…”

“…Under assessment of confounding factors, self-selection adjustment was added as a criterion, as it might affect the accuracy of the result regarding the relationship between the built environment and physical activity [14,25]. Generally, self-selection means that people who like to be physically active tend to choose to live in a neighborhood that can better support physical activity [25]. In the included studies, self-selection factors contain the respondents' attitudes towards AT, preference for a more/less walkable neighborhood to live in, and other factors related to psychosocial aspects.…”