KEEP THIS TEXT BOX this slide includes some ESRI fonts. when you save this presentation, use File > Save As > Tools (upper right) > Save Options > Embed TrueType Fonts (all characters) this will allow vector maps created with common ESRI symbols to show on computers that do not have ESRI software loaded a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a The Built Environment & Walking Orion Stewart, AICP Research Scientist Urban Form Lab University of Washington

Topics Conceptual frameworks of the BE as it relates to walking  Socio-ecological model  The 7 D’s  Behavioral model of the environment  Built environment change framework  Hierarchy of walking needs Overview of elements that support walking 2

3 Walk Individual Household environment Social environment Built environment Broader economic, policy, and institutional environments Socio-ecological model

Walking characteristics  Context and purpose  Overall walking  Walking for transportation  Walking for recreation/leisure  Walking in the neighborhood, at the workplace, etc.  Frequency, duration, and intensity  Time (minutes per week)  Trips (trips per week)  MET-minutes (intensity and duration)  Thresholds (low/medium/high, walker/non-walker) 4

Socio-ecological model Individual- and household-level elements related to walking  Income (high and low)  Education (high and low)  Age (older)  Sex (?)  Race/Ethnicity (?)  Household size (?)  Number of cars (fewer cars)  Dog ownership (dog present)  Cognitive constructs: attitude, perceived behavioral control, perceived benefits, self-efficacy 5

Socio-ecological model Social environment-level elements related to walking  Social support construct:  How often do family, friends, and/or work colleagues walk with you?  How often do family, friends, and/or work colleagues encourage you to walk?  Subjective norm construct:  If I were to walk regularly, most of the people who are important to me would approve (agree/disagree)  Most of the people who are important to me would recommend that I walk regularly (agree/disagree) 6

Socio-ecological model Broader economic, policy, and institutional environment-level elements related to walking  Cost of car ownership  Driver education  Traffic regulations and enforcement  Focus on mobility vs. accessibility 7

Socio-ecological model Built Environment elements related to walking 1.Density – jobs and residences per areal unit 2.Diversity – land use mix, jobs/housing balance 3.Design – block size, intersection density 4.Destination accessibility – distance to job, store 5.Distance to transit – distance to transit stop 6.Demand management – parking supply, cost 7.Demographics – see individual/HH level of SEM 8

Behavioral model of the environment Three components of the environment 1.Origin/destination 2.Route 3.Area Four interactive relationships 1.Spatiophysical 2.Spatiobehavioral 3.Spatiopsychosocial 4.Policy 9 Source: Moudon and Lee 2003

Behavioral model of the environment 10 Physical Building or lot square footage Building Fenestration Building height Behavioral Building or lot use (retail, residential) Volume of visitors Hours of use Psychosocial Usefulness Aesthetics Comfort Policy Building codes Zoning codes Commute trip reduction program Origin/destination characteristics

Behavioral model of the environment 11 Physical Presence of sidewalks Street, lane width Street furniture Behavioral Traffic speed Traffic Volume Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts Psychosocial Ease of walking Aesthetics Safety Policy Complete streets Local improvement district Design and engineering standards Route characteristics

Behavioral model of the environment 12 Physical Average block size Average parcel size Area of vacant lots Behavioral Crime Land use Residential/employment density Psychosocial Safety Sense of belonging Comfort Policy Pedestrian master plan Subarea plans Neighborhood organizations Area characteristics

Affordance The link from objective (physical to behavioral) to subjective (psyschosocial) characteristics  Properties of an environment only exist in relation to a person  Physical attributes and other people’s behavior within an environment drive an individual’s perception of that environment and subsequent behavior  Affordance captures the “agent-environment mutuality” 13

Built environment change framework 14 Source: Moudon and Burke, in review

Built environment change framework 15 BME: policy physical behavioral/psychosocial SEM: individual, HH, social environment

Hierarchy of walking needs 16 Conceptual framework for a study of microscale environmental characteristics that influence walking behavior on main streets Source: Mehta, 2008

Hierarchy of walking needs 17 Conceptual framework for a study of microscale environmental characteristics that influence walking behavior on main streets BME: physical and behavioral BME: psychosocial SEM: individual, HH, social environment Source: Mehta, 2008

Hierarchy of walking needs 18 Source: Mehta, 2008

Hierarchy of walking needs 19 7 Sense of belonging Sense of acceptance and communal ownership… a “third place” 6Sensory pleasure Lights, sounds, smells, touches, shapes, patterns… all in moderation 5 Comfort Elements: Sun, wind, rain Activities: walking, standing, sitting, talking 4 Safety Crime: maintenance, surveillance, people Traffic: speed, volume, separation 3Usefulness Satisfaction of day-to-day needs: shopping, eating, entertainment, recreation, etc. 2*Accessibility Ability to reach destination: distance, barriers, linkage with other modes 1*Feasibility Choice of mobility, time, other responsibilities * Prerequisites for a walk trip Hierarchy of walking needs

Summary  Different types of walking: context and amount  BE is one level of the socio-ecological model  Three BE components: origin/destination, route, area  Four interactive relationships with BE components: policy, spatiophysical, spatiobehavioral, and spatiopsychosocial  Affordance as the conceptual link between objective and subjective BE 20

Operationalizing the BE framework 21 The Small Town Walkability study  Nine small towns in Washington, Texas, and the Northeast; ~200 participants per town  Telephone survey on neighborhood walking in the past month, as well as neighborhood, social, household, and individual characteristics. Neighborhood defined as a 20-minute walk from home.  Objective GIS data on parcel, street network, and natural environment characteristics measured within one-km network buffer of home  Multivariate model of the odds of walking for utilitarian purposes 150+ minutes per week vs. walking minutes per week (about 20% of respondents walked more than 150 minutes per week)

Operationalizing the BE framework 22 DomainVariableOdds RatioP-value 95% Conf. Interval LowerUpper Individual/HH Gender (Female vs. Male, ref.) Age (Continuous Var.) BMI 14.8 – 25.0(Reference Group) 25.1 – or higher0.432** Income (9 ordinal cat.)0.829** Days/week with 30+ min. of PA excluding walking1.107** Weekly hours of recreational walking (7 ordinal cat.)1.575** Perceived BE Neighborhood characteristics There are crosswalks and pedestrian signals to help walkers cross busy streets 1.593** The speed of traffic on most nearby streets is usually slow 1.537* Unattended dogs are a problem1.879** Neighborhood destinations A coffee place1.477* A park or natural recreation area1.495* Objective BE Land usePresence of manufacturing within buffer1.643** DestinationsPresence of post offices within buffer1.918** *: p<0.05 / **: p<0.01 Preliminary results

More results of BE-walk research 23  Results of meta-analysis of home neighborhood built environment characteristics and walking  Elasticities represent % change in probability of walking per 1% change in BE variable Source: Ewing and Cervero, 2010

More results of BE-walk research 24  Results of review of 13 reviews on BE correlates of walking  Results of review of 29 original studies on BE and walking Source: Saelens and Handy, 2008

References and further readings Slide 4 – walking characteristics Freedson, P. S., K. Brendley, et al. (2008). "New techniques and issues in assessing walking behavior and its contexts." Med Sci Sports Exerc 40(7 Suppl): S Slide 5 – individual and HH elements related to walking (also a good review of BE correlates) Pratt, R. H., J. E. Evans, et al. (2012). Chapter 16, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. Report 95: Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Slide 5 and 6 – cognitive and social constructs Panter, J. R. and A. Jones (2010). "Attitudes and the environment as determinants of active travel in adults: what do and don't we know?" J Phys Act Health 7(4): Slide 7 – broader policy elements related to walking Pucher, J. and L. Dijkstra (2003) “Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: Lessons from The Netherlands and Germany” American Journal of Public Health 93(9): Slide 8 and 23 – Seven D BE elements related to walking Ewing, R. and R. Cervero (2010). "Travel and the Built Environment." Journal of the American Planning Association 76(3): Slide 9 – Behavioral model of the environment Moudon A.V. and C. Lee (2003) “Walking and biking: An evaluation of environmental audit instruments.” American Journal of Health Promotion 18: Slide 13 – Affordance Gibson, J. J. (1982) "A Preliminary Description and Classification of Affordances," in Reasons for Realism, E. S. Reed and R. Jones, Eds., ed Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, pp Slide 14 – Built environment change framework Moudon A.V. and E.M. Berke (in review) “Built environment change: A framework to support health-enhancing behavior through environmental policy and health research.” Slide 16 – Hierarchy of walking needs Mehta, V. (2008). "Walkable streets: pedestrian behavior, perceptions and attitudes." Journal of Urbanism 1(3): Slide 24 – review of correlates of walking Saelens, B. E. and S. L. Handy (2008). "Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 40(7, Supplement 1): S550-S