Frontiers of Architectural Research (2017) 6, 63–73

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Frontiers of Architectural Research

www.elsevier.com/locate/foar

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Designing healthy communities: Testing

the walkability model
Adriana A. Zuniga-Terann, Barron J. Orr,
Randy H. Gimblett, Nader V. Chalfoun, Stuart E. Marsh,
David P. Guertin, Scott B. Going

Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA

Received 24 June 2016; received in revised form 17 November 2016; accepted 26 November 2016

KEYWORDS Abstract
Walkability; Research from multiple domains has provided insights into how neighborhood design can be
Physical activity; improved to have a more favorable effect on physical activity, a concept known as walkability.
Built environment; The relevant research findings/hypotheses have been integrated into a Walkability Framework,
LEED-ND; which organizes the design elements into nine walkability categories. The purpose of this study
Neighborhood design
was to test whether this conceptual framework can be used as a model to measure the
interactions between the built environment and physical activity. We explored correlations
between the walkability categories and physical activity reported through a survey of residents
of Tucson, Arizona (n =486). The results include significant correlations between the walkability
categories and physical activity as well as between the walkability categories and the two
motivations for walking (recreation and transportation). To our knowledge, this is the first study
that reports links between walkability and walking for recreation. Additionally, the use of the
Walkability Framework allowed us to identify the walkability categories most strongly
correlated with the two motivations for walking. The results of this study support the use of
the Walkability Framework as a model to measure the built environment in relation to its ability
to promote physical activity.
& 2017 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
n
Corresponding author. The increasing lack of physical activity among all popula-
E-mail addresses: [email protected], tions is considered a global public health problem (“WHO|
[email protected] (A.A. Zuniga-Teran). Physical Inactivity”, n.d.). Public health efforts to improve
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University. health typically promote moderate types of physical

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2016.11.005
2095-2635/& 2017 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
64 A.A. Zuniga-Teran et al.

activity, such as walking and biking, because these are is explored. These domains include physical activity, land
easier for inactive populations to begin and maintain and planning and transportation, thermal comfort, health, and
these are also easier to incorporate into daily routines greenspace. The framework also addresses walkability from
(Frank et al., 2003). The built environment has been the perspective of architecture and urban design through
identified as an essential factor for integrating physical the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for
activity into one's daily life (Cerin et al., 2013; Frank et al., Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) design guidelines
2003; Frumkin et al., 2011; Sallis et al., 2011). International (USGBC, 2016). Finally, the framework groups the neighbor-
organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) hood design elements that have been identified theoreti-
have called for changes to be made in the built environment cally as essential factors for physical activity into nine
to improve human health through walking, including walkability categories: connectivity, density, land use,
changes in urban design, transportation and recreational traffic safety, surveillance, experience, parking, green-
facilities (Adams et al., 2013). For such changes to be space, and community.
effective, it is critical to identify the design elements of the The connectivity category measures how well a street
built environment that influence physical activity. In other network provides multiple, direct, and short routes to reach
words, what elements of the built environment encourage different destinations. It is desirable to have a high level of
people to walk? connectivity to facilitate walking; and this is thought to be
There are different motivations for walking that require achieved by having small blocks (short distance between
different elements from the built environment. Behavioral intersections), a grid street network (as opposed to cul-de-
scientists have identified two primary motivations for walk- sacs or dead-end streets), and open to the public (as opposed
ing: recreation and transportation (Giles-Corti et al., 2005; to fenced or gated communities). The density category refers
Saelens and Handy, 2008). Walking for recreation refers to to residential density and captures design elements that
walking for exercise or simple recreation, whereas walking increase the number of people in the streets, which is
for transportation refers to walking to reach a destination thought to be related to walking. These refer to the
(Saelens and Handy, 2008). Research has identified distinc- prevalent types of dwelling units in the neighborhood (e.g.,
tions in the types of walking and how they are influenced by single-family housing, townhomes, apartment buildings). The
the built environment: walking for transportation has been land use category measures the diversity of land uses (e.g.,
shown to be related to the design of the neighborhood, residential, commercial) within walking distance (less than
whereas recreational walking has not been shown to be 1/2 mile or 800 m, or a 10-min walk) from the respondent's
affected by neighborhood design (Rodríguez et al., 2006; residence. Locating a variety of small businesses (e.g., shops,
Saelens et al., 2003; Toit et al., 2007). restaurants, offices) close to homes facilitates and
To assess the design elements of the built environment encourages walking. The traffic safety category highlights
that influence physical activity, it is necessary to both the infrastructure needed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle
capture the state-of-the-art research on walkability and safety in the presence of traffic. Slowing traffic and giving
organize findings in a way that can be readily used by those pedestrians and bicyclists safe places to travel by providing
directly influencing the design of the built environment space/infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, bike lanes) encourage
(e.g., architects, builders, developers, and planners). The walking. The surveillance category measures how well those
Walkability Framework developed by Zuniga-Teran (2015) traveling on the street can be seen from the surrounding
and later applied by Zuniga-Teran et al. (2016) serves both homes and businesses. It is hypothesized that buildings
of these purposes (Fig. 1). The framework synthesizes designed in such a way that people inside the buildings can
hypotheses from several research domains in which the observe the street (e.g., via balconies, front porches, short
relationship between the built environment and walkability building setbacks, and back alleys serving garages) encourage
people walking by enhancing the perception of safety from
crime. Streetscapes should also encourage activity on the
sidewalks (e.g., outdoor cafes, clear windows for shops) and
should include other design elements that reduce crime
(e.g., lighting). The experience category measures whether
the built environment provides a pleasant experience while
walking. In this category, we include the streetscape propor-
tions, aesthetics (graffiti, trash, buildings, sights), wayfinding
considerations (signage, landmarks), thermal comfort (trees,
shade), slope (hilly streets), and presence of dogs/wildlife.
The parking category measures the availability of parking,
where the less parking provided is thought to be more
walkable. Not only is walking through a parking lot undesir-
able, but if there is no parking available, people may choose
an alternative mode of transportation besides cars that may
involve physical activity. If parking is necessary, then locating
parking behind buildings and away from the street is thought
to create an area more interesting and walkable. The
Fig. 1 The Walkability Framework shows the interrelation greenspace category measures the availability of spaces
between the nine neighborhood design categories that when dominated by vegetation; the size, proximity, and ease of
combined result in walkability. access of the greenspaces are all considered in this category.
Designing healthy communities: Testing the walkability model 65

group of university students from a range of disciplines. Based

on the input received in these two steps, both the questions
and the physical structure of the instrument were refined. The
questionnaire was created in two formats: online and paper-
based. The online version was created using the survey and
statistics software DatStat Illume v. 5.1 (http://www.datstat.
com/survey-research-software).
Recruitment was accomplished by reaching potential
participants (older than 18) through trusted organizations
associated with the central topic of the questionnaire –
neighborhood design. In the City of Tucson and in Pima
County, the most appropriate organizations are neighbor-
hood associations and homeowners associations, which are
supported administratively by local electoral districts
known as wards. Ward officials helped arrange contacts
with the presidents of neighborhood associations within the
Fig. 2 Walkable neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that provide City of Tucson and the presidents of homeowners associa-
pedestrian infrastructure, in a connected street network with tions within Pima County for areas outside the city limits.
short routes to commercial destinations, combined with beau- The ward officials and the neighborhood association pre-
tiful sights, and homes that allow people from inside the sidents were contacted by the researcher prior to the
buildings to watch the streets are thought to encourage questionnaire distribution. The research project was
walking. explained, and the officials were asked to forward an
invitation email that contained a link to the online ques-
Finally, the community category measures the presence of tionnaire to all of their residents.
spaces that facilitate social interaction and that encourage The paper version of the questionnaire was distributed
participation in community affairs (e.g., community centers, through visits to the Rillito River Park, between Craycroft
plazas, churches). Neighborhoods that combine elements Road and Alvernon Way on both sides of the river (Fig. 3).
from the above categories are thought to be more walkable This section of the park was chosen because it is accessible
(Fig. 2). to a range of socioeconomic populations and to multiple
The Walkability Framework is a conceptual representa- neighborhoods with various levels of walkability. The park is
tion of hypotheses synthesized from multiple fields. The a greenway that has a walking/biking path on both sides of
purpose of this study is to determine the degree to which the Rillito River wash and extends for several miles (Fig. 4).
the framework can be used as a model to measure the The paper version of the questionnaire was also distributed
effectiveness of the built environment in relation to by mail to reach those residents not accessible via email
encouraging physical activity and supporting wellbeing. and/or who lived in neighborhoods with a distinct design.
The total number of responses was 486 including 338 from
the online version, 103 from the visits to the park, and 45
2. Material and methods from the mailed surveys.
The statistical analysis involved bivariate correlations to
To gain deeper insights into the relationships between determine significance and to establish the magnitude of
physical activity and walkability, we developed a question- relationships. This analysis was conducted using IBM-SPSS
naire to capture the perceptions, attitudes, and behavior of (http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss). This
neighborhood residents with respect to the categories of research was approved by the Institutional Review Board
walkability/neighborhood design comprising the Walkability for the Protection of Human Subjects on December 12, 2013
Framework. We developed this questionnaire by using (IRB # 13-0855 UAR Number 1300000855).
existing and validated instruments when possible to capture The questionnaire is divided in three sections: (1) walk-
variables of interest, by adapting existing instruments when ability, (2) physical activity, (3) and demographics.
necessary, and by developing and testing unique questions
when no existing instrument was available. The resulting
questionnaire was then refined based on the results of 2.1. Walkability
validation exercises and finalized into an online and paper
version. The questionnaire was administered to residents of The walkability section was structured to address the
Tucson, Arizona, between January and March 2014. Tucson different elements of the Walkability Framework
was selected for this study because different neighborhood (Table 1). It includes questions taken from the Neighborhood
designs are prevalent within a relatively concentrated area Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) questionnaire devel-
and the warm, dry climate makes walking very accessible oped by Saelens et al. (2003) and later abbreviated by Cerin
for a large portion of the year (October to May). It should be et al. (2006), as well as elements from the Walkability Index
noted that the study period fell within this window. developed by Frank et al. (2009). This section also includes
A draft of the questionnaire was validated based on input questions based on the walkability design guidelines from
from experts drawn from the research domains that contrib- LEED-ND (USGBC, 2014), and findings from previous studies
uted to the content of the questionnaire, and the question- (Handy et al., 2002; Barton et al., 2003; Sandifer et al.,
naire was then tested for comprehension and clarity with a 2015). Eight of the nine categories of the Walkability
66 A.A. Zuniga-Teran et al.

Fig. 3 The Rillito River Park is accessible to a gradient of socioeconomic backgrounds and from neighborhoods with different levels
of walkability. The north side of the park is less connected (cul-de-sacs), and includes mostly single family housing; whereas the
south side is more dense, and more connected (grid street network). (Image adapted from Google Maps).

which can then be normalized to a 0–1 scale. The normal-

ized values for the eight walkability categories captured in
the survey could then be added together and adjusted to a
0–1 scale to yield the overall Walkability Index.
The majority of the questions designed to examine the
walkability categories were based on a 4-point Likert scale
(Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly disagree). With
some of these scaled questions, it was necessary to reverse
the values with respect to their original form so that all
walkability questions were consistently scaled, with larger
values indicating higher levels of walkability. The other
question format used in this section involved a list of
alternatives with a binary answer choice for each alter-
Fig. 4 Rillito River Park. Respondents were recruited through native (Yes = 1 or No= 0). Not all alternatives were deemed
visits to the Rillito River Park on both the north (right) and the equal contributors to walkability. For example, in the land
south (left) sides (photo credit Cynthia Bristain). use category, the participants were asked to select “ser-
vices close to home” and were given multiple options to
Framework are addressed. The parking category was not select. Most service options were given a point value of
included in this study because Tucson and the surrounding 1 point (1X). However, some services were weighted more
metropolitan area have ample parking availability through- heavily because of the added importance they play in
out the day, so it became irrelevant to measure this enhancing the walkability of a neighborhood. Destinations
variable. that were given 3 points (3X) included those that a) require
In the walkability section, points were assigned to each daily trips (school and child care), b) provide access to food
potential response for each question; a larger value indi- and fresh produce (e.g., supermarket, food retail, and
cates increased walkability. To ensure comparability of the farmers’ market), or c) offer extended business hours,
data between walkability categories, the response values thereby providing added street vitality to the neighborhood
for the questions in each walkability category were (e.g., restaurants and theaters). One service that was
designed to be added to obtain a total for that category, attributed 5 points (5X) was ‘bus stops’ because they
Designing healthy communities: Testing the walkability model 67

Table 1 Questionnaire questions for the walkability categories.

Walkability Category Variables Questions

Connectivity  Barriers  There are major barriers to walking

 Small blocks  The distance between intersections is usually short (100 yards)a
 Multiple routes  There are many alternative routes for getting from place to
 Restricted access placea
 Dead-end streets  My neighborhood is a gated community
 Back alleys  My neighborhood is fenced on the outer boundary
 The streets in my neighborhood have many cul-de-sacs
 Back alleys serve most of the garages in my neighborhooda
Density  Dwelling type  Select the option that best describes your dwelling type (single
 Prevalent dwelling type in the family, townhome, apartment, multi-family, temporary home)
neighborhood  How common is single-family housing?a
 How common are townhomes?
 How common are apartments/condos?a(none, a few, some, most,
all)

Land use  Proximity of a diversity of ser-  Check the services that are located within a 10-min walk
vices to home (1/2 mile or less from your home) (check all that apply):
Bus stop, Gym, Post office, Bank, Supermarket, Hair salon/
barber, School, Police station, Food store with produce, Laun-
dry/dry cleaner, Theater, Pharmacy, Clothing store, Restau-
rant/café/diner, Medical clinic, Convenient store, Government
office, Farmers’ market, Child-care facility, Social services
center, Hardware, Museum
Traffic safety  Pedestrian and cyclist  There are bike lanes on most of the streetsa
infrastructure  There are sidewalks on most of the streetsa
 Sidewalks are separated from the road/traffic by parked carsa
 There is a grass/dirt strip that separates the streets from the
sidewalka
 There are dirt trails on most of the streetsa
 There are crosswalks and pedestrian signals to help walkers cross
busy streetsa
 The streets have speed bumpsa
 The speed limit is 25 mph or less on most of the streetsa
Surveillance  Ability of people to be seen in the  My neighborhood streets are well lit at nighta
streets  Most units have front porchesa
 The buildings are located close to the streeta
 Most dwellings have front garage doors
 My neighborhood has back alleys with garagesa
Experience  Aesthetics  There is graffiti in my neighborhood
 Slope  There is trash/litter in my neighborhood
 Way-finding  There are many attractive natural sights to look at while
 Thermal comfort walkinga
 There are attractive buildings and homesa
 Possible interactions with wildlife makes it attractive to go on
walksa
 Possible interactions with wildlife or stray dogs make it unsafe
to go on walks
 Most streets are hilly, making it difficult to walk or bike
 It is easy to get lost while walking
 Clear signage or landmarks are present that help me find my
waya
 There is enough shade to walk comfortablya
 There are trees along the streetsa
Greenspace  Proximity to greenspace  How far is the nearest greenspace from your home?a
 Access to greenspace  Greenspace is located within a 10-min walk from home
 It is easy to walk to greenspace from my home
68 A.A. Zuniga-Teran et al.

Table 1 (continued )

Walkability Category Variables Questions

Community  Availability of spaces for commu-  There is a community center close to home
nity interaction  There is a church close to home
 My neighborhood shares facilities (e.g., pool, tennis courts,
community center)a
a
These questions were reversed from their original source format to be consistent with intent of the instrument to capture
increasing levels of walkability.

Table 2 Questionnaire questions for the physical activity section identifying the two motivations for walking.

Type of walking Intention Questions

Walking for recreation Walk or bike for exercise, to visit greenspace,  During the last 7 days, on how many days did you walk
or to walk a dog. for 10 mins? (0–7 days)
 During the last 7 days, on how many days did you walk
to a greenspace? (0–7 days)
 What method of transportation do you usually use to
reach a greenspace? (Check: Walk, Skate, Bike)
 What activities do you or your family participate in
along the streets of your neighborhood? (Check: Exer-
cise, Dog-walking)
Walking for Walk or bike to reach a service (e.g., shop or  Do you walk to any service (including a bus stop) from
transportation restaurant) or public transportation (e.g., your home?* (Yes, Sometimes, No)
bus stop).  During the last 7 days, on how many days did you walk
to a service (including a bus stop)? (0–7 days)
 What activities do you or your family participate in
along the streets of your neighborhood? (Check: Walk/
bike as a means of transportation)

provide opportunities to travel beyond the neighborhood “walking for transportation”, whereas questions about
without the use of a personal automobile, therefore enhan- walking with the intention to exercise, go to a greenspace,
cing walkability. or walk one's dog were placed in “walking for recreation”.
We added one question to each section that explores
activities performed on the street, and the appropriate
2.2. Physical activity options were placed accordingly.

The physical activity section of the questionnaire contained 2.3. Demographics

five questions that inquire about methods of transportation
used to reach greenspaces, whether one walks to services The following demographic data were collected from the
close to home, and the number of days during the previous respondents: Age (18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and 70
week that people walked. The last three questions were or more), Gender (Male/Female), Race/Ethnicity (check all
based on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire that apply: African-American, Alaskan Native, American
(IPAQ), which is an instrument that can be used interna- Indian, Asian, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian, White,
tionally to measure physical activity across multiple popula- 2 or more races), Income ($30,000 or less, $30,001 to
tions (http://sallis.ucsd.edu/measure_ipaq.html) and that $59,000, $60,000 or more), Education (check all that apply:
has been used in several studies on physical activity (Craig High school, Professional School, University or College,
et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2013). Similar to the approach Master's/Ph.D).
taken in the walkability section, the response values were
added together and adjusted to a 0–1 scale to obtain the
Physical Activity Index. 3. Results
To assess the motivation for walking, the physical activity
section was divided into two parts: (1) walking for trans- The demographics of our sample population indicate that
portation and (2) walking for recreation (Table 2). We approximately one-fourth of the respondents (26.5%)
divided the questions with respect to the motivation for reported being in their 60 s, and another fourth (24.7%)
walking. Questions about walking with the intention to reported being in their 50 s. Approximately one-fifth
reach a service or public transportation were placed in reported being in their 70 s or older (20.4%), and the
Designing healthy communities: Testing the walkability model 69

Table 3 Demographic information obtained from the questionnaire.

Demographics Group Frequency Percent Valid percent

Age group 18–29 20 4.1 5.2

30–39 34 7.0 8.8
40–49 56 11.5 14.4
50–59 96 19.8 24.7
60–69 103 21.2 26.5
70 or more 79 16.3 20.4
Total 388 79.8 100.0
No answer 98 20.2
Total 486 100.0
Gender Male 142 29.2 37.4
Female 238 49.0 62.6
Total 380 78.2 100.0
No answer 106 21.8
Total 486 100.0
Race/Ethnicity Native American 4 0.8 1.1
Asian 5 1.0 1.3
Hispanic 32 6.6 8.6
White 327 67.3 87.9
2 or more 4 0.8 1.1
Total 372 76.5 100.0
No answer 114 23.5
Total 468 100.0
Income $30,000 or less 70 14.4 19.1
$30,001 to $59,999 116 23.9 31.7
$60,000 or more 180 37.0 49.2
Total 366 75.3 100.0
No answer 120 24.7
Total 486 100.0
Education High School 20 4.1 5.2
Professional School 17 3.5 4.4
University or College 179 36.8 46.7
Master's – Ph.D 167 34.4 43.6
Total 383 78.8 100.0
No answer 103 21.2
Total 486 100.0

Table 4 Relationship between the walkability cate- remainder in their 40 s (14.4%), 30 s (8.8%), or younger
gories and Physical Activity Index. Significant and mod- (5.2%) (Table 3). More than half of the respondents (62.6%)
erate/strong correlations are shown in bold. reported being female. The majority of the respondents
reported being of white ethnicity (87.9%), whereas most of
Walkability category Pearson corre- Sig. (p) N the balance reported being Hispanic (8.6%). In terms of
tested with the Physi- lation (r) income, approximately one-half of the respondents (49.2%)
cal Activity Index reported being in the highest income bracket, approxi-
mately one-third (31.7%) reported being in the medium
Connectivity 0.256 0.000 386 income bracket, and the remainder reported being in the
Density 0.465 0.000 485 lowest income bracket. In terms of education, most of the
Land use 0.508 0.000 485 respondents reported having a high level of education (a
Traffic safety 0.641 0.000 485 college/university degree 46.7%, or beyond 43.6%).
Surveillance 0.309 0.000 380 The statistical analysis revealed significant associations
Experience 0.608 0.000 485 between each walkability category and physical activity
Greenspace 0.653 0.000 485 (po0.001) (Table 4). However, the magnitude of the
Community 0.182 0.000 380 Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between each walkability
Walkability Indexa 0.394 0.000 373 category and physical activity varied. We found moderate
a
Values for the eight walkability categories included in this
correlations (0.3oro0.7) for density, land use, traffic
study added together and adjusted to a scale of 0–1. safety, surveillance, experience, and greenspace. We found
weak correlations (ro0.3) between physical activity and
70 A.A. Zuniga-Teran et al.

Table 5 Walkability categories and the two motivations for walking: walking for recreation and walking for transportation.
Significant and moderate/strong correlations are shown in bold.

Walking for recreation Walking for transportation

Walkability Categories Pearson Correlation (r) Sig. (p) Pearson Correlation (r) Sig. (p)

Connectivity 0.161 0.002 0.283 0.000

Density 0.445 0.000 0.035 0.507
Land use 0.435 0.000 0.240 0.000
Traffic safety 0.602 0.000 0.211 0.000
Surveillance 0.193 0.000 0.264 0.000
Experience 0.609 0.000 0.040 0.448
Greenspace 0.653 0.000 0.112 0.032
Community 0.118 0.021 0.204 0.000
Walkability Index 0.269 0.000 0.322 0.000

connectivity, and community. Overall, we found a significant Both types of walking were found significantly correlated
and moderate correlation between the Walkability Index to the Walkability Index (all the walkability categories
(all the categories added and adjusted to a 0–1 scale) and together). On the whole, transportational walking was
physical activity. quantitatively more predictable than recreational walking
Similarly, bivariate correlations between the walkability for our sample population and neighborhood environment
categories and the two motivations for walking (recreation because the result for the Pearson correlation coefficient (r)
and transportation) revealed a range of results (Table 5). between the Walkability Index and walking for transporta-
With regard to walking for recreation, we found significant tion was higher (r= 0.322/moderate) than for walking for
correlations with all of the walkability categories; however, recreation (r= 0.269/weak). However, when we examined
the magnitude of the correlations between the individual the results between the two types of walking and the
walkability categories and walking for recreation varied. We individual walkability categories we found stronger results
found moderate correlations between walking for recrea- for recreational walking than for transportational walking.
tion and density, land use, traffic safety, experience, and We found moderate correlations for recreational walking
greenspace; and weak correlations between walking for and individual walkability categories, but weak correlations
recreation and connectivity, surveillance, and community. for transportational walking and the individual walkability
The walkability categories traffic safety, experience, and categories. Although overall our model predicted transpor-
greenspace showed a stronger magnitude followed by tational walking better than recreational walking, the
density and land use. These results suggest that a neighbor- stronger results for the individual walkability categories
hood that provides traffic safety (pedestrian and biking suggest a higher predictability (better fit) for recreational
infrastructure), combined with design elements that walking.
enhance the experience of walking (thermal comfort,
aesthetics, way-finding, slope), includes greenspace in close
proximity and easy-access (greenspace), provides commer- 4. Discussion
cial destinations close to homes (land use), and has a high
residential density (density) might encourage recreational The purpose of this study was to test whether the Walk-
walking. ability Framework, (Zuniga-Teran, 2015; Zuniga-Teran
With regard to walking for transportation and the walk- et al., 2016), could be used as a model to measure the
ability categories, we found significant albeit weak correla- physical characteristics of the built environment in relation
tions with connectivity, land use, traffic safety, to the promotion of physical activity. We found that the
surveillance, greenspace, and community. However, we Walkability Framework does reveal information about how
did not find significant correlations between walking for well the built environment promotes physical activity.
transportation and density or experience. These results Moreover, our assessment of walkability using the Walkabil-
suggest that a neighborhood that features small blocks in ity Framework yielded significant correlations between
a grid street network, without fences or gates (connectiv- walkability and the two motivations for walking (walking
ity), has commercial destinations close to homes (land use), for recreation and walking for transportation), whereas
provides pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (traffic previous research has identified links with walking for
safety), allows people from inside the buildings to watch transportation but not with walking for recreation
the streets (surveillance), has greenspace in close proximity (Rodríguez et al., 2006; Saelens et al., 2003; Toit et al.,
and easy access (greenspace), and provides spaces for 2007). We believe this result was due to the use of the
community activities (community) might encourage trans- Walkability Framework, which captures more design ele-
portational walking. In contrast, it may not be that impor- ments related to physical activity than what has been
tant when walking for transportation to have high included in previous studies. For example, to our knowl-
residential density (density) and a nice experience while edge, the greenspace and community categories have not
walking (experience). been considered in previous research studies as part of
Designing healthy communities: Testing the walkability model 71

walkability, and this may have increased the magnitude of collected the data might have played a role in shaping these
the correlation between walkability and walking for recrea- results because during winter, Tucson residents enjoy com-
tion. This finding is especially significant for the greenspace fortable weather. Some variables in the experience cate-
category because the magnitude of the correlation coeffi- gory, such as access to shade and the presence of trees,
cient for this category was the largest (r= 0.653) among the might not affect walking during the months we collected
walkability categories and walking for recreation. The data, whereas during the summer months when the daily
importance of greenspace as a predictor of physical activity high temperature is typically above 100 1F in Tucson, this
has been documented before (Hartig et al., 2014). category may become more important. Gathering new data
Our results suggest that different aspects of the built during the hot summer months might yield different results
environment are important depending on one's reason for for the correlation between the experience category and
walking. Although we found significant correlations between walking for transportation.
walkability as a whole (Walkability Index) and the two With regard to walking for recreation, all of the walk-
motivations for walking, we found slightly stronger results ability categories showed significant correlations. It was
(higher r values) for walking for transportation than we did expected that greenspace and experience would produce
for walking for recreation. These results align with previous the strongest correlations because it has been documented
findings that identified that walkability is most strongly that the greenness of the built environment influence
correlated with walking for transportation (Rodríguez et al., walking for recreation (Hartig et al., 2014), and our results
2006; Saelens et al., 2003; Toit et al., 2007). confirmed this expectation. It was also not surprising to find
Comparing the results for the individual walkability that traffic safety is related to walking for recreation since
categories and the two motivations for walking revealed pedestrian infrastructure is hypothesized as important for
that different aspects of the built environment are impor- lifestyle physical activity (Jacobs, 2011). Likewise, land use
tant depending on one's reason for walking. On the one showed significant and moderate correlations probably
hand, we identified those aspects of neighborhood design because proximity to shops and restaurant provides inter-
that are significantly related to walking for transportation esting sights to pedestrians (Jacobs, 2011; Montgomery,
(connectivity, land use, traffic safety, surveillance, green- 2013). Even though connectivity, surveillance, and commu-
space, and community), and those with no significant nity were significantly correlated with recreational walking,
relationship (experience and density). These results align these correlations were weak. It is possible that connectiv-
with previous research that found links between walking for ity was weakly correlated with walking for recreation
transportation and proximity to services (land use), pedes- because a longer route may be enjoyable if the route itself
trian and bicycle infrastructure (traffic safety), and safety is pleasant. Likewise, surveillance was found to be weakly
from crime (surveillance) (Hartig et al., 2014). On the other correlated with this type of walking probably because when
hand, walking for recreation was significantly correlated the crime rate in the neighborhood is low and neighbors are
with all of the walkability categories; with stronger correla- familiar with one another, people might feel safe walking in
tions with greenspace, experience, traffic safety, density, their own neighborhoods even if they are not being watched
and land use. These results imply that the framework by those inside nearby homes. Similarly, we think that
predicted recreational walking more strongly than transpor- community was significantly but weakly correlated to
tational walking. This may be a consequence of our recruit- recreational walking because spaces that allow opportu-
ment method, which mostly targeted residents of nities for social interaction may be desired but not essential
residential neighborhoods and park users, combined with a for this type of walking.
scarcity of mixed-use developments in our study area The walkability categories that showed significant correla-
(Tucson). tions with both motivations for walking were traffic safety
One possible explanation for the differing magnitudes of and land use. These results indicate that walkable neighbor-
the correlations (r) for these relationships is as follows: if hoods should provide safe infrastructure to pedestrians and
someone is walking to reach a destination (transportation), cyclists and employ traffic-calming treatments to encourage
it is important that they have access to short routes physical activity regardless of the motivation of walking. In
(connectivity), that the origin and destination be in close addition, walkable neighborhoods must include a mix of land
proximity (land use), that walking and biking infrastructure uses (a variety of shops and restaurants close to homes) to
is available (traffic safety), and that they have the impres- encourage walking for both recreation and transportation.
sion that they can be easily observed by other members of
the public (surveillance). Likewise, it may be important to
have a park nearby (greenspace) (Sandifer et al., 2015) and 5. Conclusion
community facilities (community), particularly if these are
the destinations in mind. It was surprising, however, that This study supports the use of the Walkability Model to
the predominant type of housing in the neighborhood measure the built environment in relation to physical
(density) was not correlated with walking for transportation activity. This model was created by synthesizing the litera-
because low-density neighborhoods may cause longer routes ture from several research domains on design elements that
and may result in less people in the streets. Isolated streets may influence physical activity (Zuniga-Teran, 2015; Zuniga-
are thought to discourage physical activity whether recrea- Teran et al., 2016). The organization of the categories was
tional or transportational (Jacobs, 2011). Likewise, it was designed to integrate well with previously developed
somewhat unexpected to find that the experience category research tools (Saelens et al., 2003; Cerin et al., 2006;
was not significantly correlated with walking for transporta- Frank et al., 2009), and the sustainable neighborhood
tion. We hypothesize that the time of the year that we design tool from LEED-ND (USGBC, 2014). The results of
72 A.A. Zuniga-Teran et al.

this study support our hypothesis that the Walkability Dr. Mark Borgstrom for their support with the statistical
Framework can test the strength of relationships between analysis of the survey, and Dr. Kasi Kiehlbaugh for editing.
actual physical activity and predicted walkability.
The model proved useful for identifying the most influ-
ential walkability categories for each type of walking. In the
case of walking for recreation, all of the walkability References
categories were significant, but the most influential (with
moderate correlations) were greenspace, experience, traf- Adams, M.A., Ding, D., Sallis, J.F., Bowles, H.R., Ainsworth, B.E.,
fic safety, density, and land use. In the case of walking for Bergman, P., Bull, F.C., Carr, H., Craig, C.L., De Bourdeaudhuij,
transportation, the most influential walkability categories I., 2013. Patterns of neighborhood environment attributes
(significant, p40.05) were connectivity, land use, traffic related to physical activity across 11 countries: a latent class
safety, surveillance, greenspace and community. Our results analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. 10, 34.
suggest that there could be two different walkability models Barton, H., Grant, M., Guise, R., 2003. Shaping Neighborhoods. A
suited for each type of walking with different combination guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality. Spon Press, London
of components. Although as a whole (Walkability Index), our and New York.
Cerin, E., Conway, T.L., Cain, K.L., Kerr, J., De Bourdeaudhuij, I.,
model quantitatively predicted better transportational
Owen, N., Reis, R.S., Sarmiento, O.L., Hinckson, E.A., Salvo, D.,
walking, we obtained stronger results for recreational
2013. Sharing good NEWS across the world: developing compar-
walking when examining the individual walkability cate- able scores across 12 countries for the Neighborhood Environ-
gories separately. More research is recommended that ment Walkability Scale (NEWS). BMC Public Health 13 (1), 309.
examines two different models tailored to each type of Cerin, E., Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.F., 2006. Neighborhood
walking. environment walkability scale: validity and development of a
Our results show that traffic safety and land use are short form. Med. Sci. Sport Exer. 38 (9), 1682–1691. http://dx.
important for both motivations for walking. This provides doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000227639.83607.4d.
empirical evidence that can guide development toward Checklist: LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development|U.S. Green
neighborhoods that provide safety to pedestrians and Building Council, 2016. Accessed March 3. 〈http://www.usgbc.
org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-checklist〉.
cyclists and promote a mix of land uses to increase physical
Craig, C.L., Marshall, A.L., Sjostrom, M., Bauman, A.E., Booth, M.L.,
activity.
Ainsworth, B.E., Pratt, M., Ekelund, U., Yngve, A., Sallis, J.F., Oja,
It is important to acknowledge the self-selection of P., 2003. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country
residents; people who enjoy walking may choose to live in reliability and validity. Med. Sci. Sport Exer. 35 (8), 1381–1395.
walkable neighborhoods, whereas people who do not enjoy http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB.
walking may choose to live in non-walkable neighborhoods. Frank, L.D., Engelke, P.O., Schmid, T.L., 2003. Health and Commu-
Future research is recommended that includes the parking nity Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on Physical
category in the assessment of walkability. In addition, we Activity. Island Press, Washington, DC.
acknowledge that the way we recruited participants Frank, L.D., Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E., Leary, L., Cain, K., Conway, T.
(through the help of neighborhood leaders, visits to green- L., Hess, P.M., 2009. The development of a walkability index:
application to the neighborhood quality of life study. Br. J. Sport
space, and mailed letters to residential neighborhoods) may
Med. 44 (13), 924–933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.
have captured preferences for recreational walking and less
058701.
so for transportational walking. Therefore, more research is Frumkin, H., Wendel, A., Abrams, R.F., Malizia, E., 2011. Chapter 1:
recommended that examines the preferences for workers an introduction to healthy places. In: Dannenberg, A., Frumkin,
and shoppers in commercial districts. Another limitation is H., Jackson, R. (Eds.), Making Healthy Places Designing and
that our sample population included older people of rela- Building for Heath, Well-being, and Sustainability. Island Press,
tively high income. Likewise, we recommend future Washington DC, USA.
research that captures more diverse respondent groups Giles-Corti, B., Timperio, A., Bull, F., Pikora, T., 2005. Under-
and analyzes differences among them. standing physical activity environmental correlates: Increased
The Walkability Model may be a useful tool that could be specificity for ecological models. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 33 (4),
175–181.
employed in future research that aims to understand the
Handy, S.L., Boarnet, M.G., Ewing, R., Killingsworth, R.E., 2002.
effects of the built environment on human behavior,
How the built environment affects physical activity: views from
particularly on lifestyle physical activity. This model can urban planning. Am. J. Prev. Med. 23 (2), 64–73.
also be used by architects, urban designers, and land Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., Frumkin, H., 2014. Nature and
planners who wish to consider health in the design of health. Annu. Rev. Publ. Health 35 (1), 207–228. http://dx.doi.
neighborhoods, which can lead to increased physical activ- org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443.
ity and potentially healthier communities. Jacobs, J., 2011. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 50th
Anniversary Edition. Modern Library, New York, NY.
Kim, Y., Park, I., Kang, M., 2013. Convergent validity of the
Acknowledgements international physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ): meta-
analysis. Public Health Nutr. 16 (03), 440–452. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1017/S1368980012002996.
This work was funded by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y
Montgomery, C., 2013. Happy city. Transforming our lives through
Tecnologia (CONACYT - Mexican government) and The Wild- urban design. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York, NY.
erness Society. Through the University of Arizona, we Rodríguez, D.A., Khattak, A.J., Evenson, K.R., 2006. Can new
received funding from graduate teaching assistantships, urbanism encourage physical activity? Comparing a new urbanist
graduate research assistantships, and several grants and neighborhood with conventional suburbs. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 72
scholarships. We are grateful to Dr. Mohammad Tobari and (1), 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976723.
Designing healthy communities: Testing the walkability model 73

Saelens, B.E., Handy, S.L., 2008. Built environment correlates of Toit, L.D., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., Owen, N., 2007. Does walking in the
walking. Med. Sci. Sport Exer. 40 (Supplement), S550–S566. http: neighbourhood enhance local sociability? Urban Stud. 44 (9),
//dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31817c67a4. 1677–1695, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426665.
Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Black, J.B., Chen, D., 2003. Neighborhood- USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council), 2014. LEED-ND Version 4.
based differences in physical activity: an environment scale USGBC.
evaluation. Am. J. Public Health 93 (9), 1552–1558. WHO|Physical Inactivity: A Global Public Health Problem, (n.d.)
Sallis, J.F., Millstein, R.A., Carlson, J.A., 2011. Chapter 2: commu- Retrieved February 19, 2016. From: 〈http://www.who.int/diet
nity design for physical activity. In: Dannenberg, A., Frumkin, physicalactivity/factsheet_inactivity/en/〉.
H., Jackson, R. (Eds.), Making Healthy Places Designing and Zuniga-Teran, A.A., 2015. From Neighborhoods to Wellbeing and
Building for Heath, Well-being, and Sustainability. Island Press, Conservation: Enhancing the use of Greenspace Through Walk-
Washington DC, USA. ability. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Sandifer, P.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E., Ward, B.P., 2015. Exploring Zuniga-Teran, A.A., Orr, B.J., Gimblett, R.H., Going, S.B., Chal-
connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, foun, N.V., Guertin, D.P., Marsh, S.E., 2016. Designing healthy
and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance communities: a walkability analysis on LEED-ND. Front. Arch.
health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 1–15. Res, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2016.09.004.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007.