Measures of walkability in the pediatric population: a qualitative review of the literature
Keywords:
Walkability, urban health, review, measures, pediatric populationAbstract
Context. Sedentary lifestyle is spreading among children living in urban settings. Recent studies in urban health investigated the effects of built environment on children’s physical activity, focusing on the concept of “walkability”, an index of how much an area is conducive to walking and active transportation. We decided to browse the literature in order to review all possible tools and methods by which walkability has been evaluated and measured.
Methods. We conducted a qualitative review of the literature in agreement with PRISMA guidelines, searching three medical databases for papers published between January 1994 and July 2017. Inclusion criteria were: primary studies, population ≤18 years and exposure variable as an assessment of walkability or built environment.
Results. We retrieved 1,702 articles and included 195 of them in the final review. Most of the studies were cross-sectional (n=188, 96.4%). We identified two possible approaches and four main tools to address walkability measurement. A subjective method approach was used in 71 studies (36.4%), an objective method in 87 (44.6%). Only 37 studies (19.0%) used both. Main tools were survey (n=70, 35.9%), Geographic Information System (GIS) (n=64, 32.8%), street audits (n=11, 5.6%) and Walk-score™ (n=3, 1.5%). Fortysix studies (23.4%) used mixed methods. Environmental variables’ assessment and definition was found to vary greatly by method of choice
Conclusions. We found a high degree of heterogeneity regarding methods and measurements of walkability. A standard approach regarding tools and environmental variables’ choice and definition will be advisable in order to allow comparisons among studies. Also, more longitudinal studies are needed.
References
1. Kruk J. Health and economic costs of physical inactivity. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15(18): 7499-503.
2. World Health Organization (WHO). Physical activity and young people. WHO, 2015.
3. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, et al. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 2012; 380(9838): 247-57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1.
4. World Health Organization (WHO). Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2014. World Health 2014: 176. ISBN 9789241564854.
5. World Health Organization (WHO). 10 key facts on physical activity in the WHO European Region. WHO, 2011.
6. Dollman J, Norton K, Norton L. Evidence for secular trends in children’s physical activity behaviour. Br J Sports Med 2005; 39(12): 892-7. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2004.016675.
7. McDonald NC, Brown AL, Marchetti LM, Pedroso MS. U.S. School Travel, 2009. Am J Prev Med 2011; 41(2): 146-51. doi: 10.1016/j. amepre.2011.04.006.
8. Mackett RL. Children’s travel behaviour and its health implications. Transp Policy 2013; 26: 6672. doi: 10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2012.01.002.
9. Cooper AR, Wedderkopp N, Wang H, Andersen LB, Froberg K, Page AS. Active travel to school and cardiovascular fitness in Danish children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38(10): 1724-31. doi: 10.1249/01. mss.0000229570.02037.1d.
10. Andersen LB, Lawlor DA, Cooper AR, Froberg K, Anderssen SA. Physical fitness in relation to transport to school in adolescents: the Danish youth and sports study. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2009; 19(3): 406-11. doi: 10.1111/j.16000838.2008.00803.x.
11. Lee MC, Orenstein MR, Richardson MJ. Systematic review of active commuting to school and childrens physical activity and weight. J Phys Act Health 2008; 5(6): 930-49. doi: 10.1123/jpah.5.6.930.
12. Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health 2006; 27(1): 297-322. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100.
13. Talukder S, Capon A, Nath D, Kolb A, Jahan S, Boufford J. Urban health in the post-2015 agenda. Lancet (London, England) 2015; 385(9970): 769. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60428-7.
14. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). World Urbanization Prospects, 2014. doi: 10.4054/ DemRes.2005.12.9.
15. Campbell T, Campbell A. Emerging disease burdens and the poor in cities of the developing world. J Urban Health 2007; 84(3 Suppl): 54-64. doi: 10.1007/s11524-007-9181-7.
16. Yusuf S, Reddy S, Ounpuu S, Anand S. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases: part I: general considerations, the epidemiologic transition, risk factors, and impact of urbanization. Circulation 2001; 104(22): 2746-53. doi: 10.1161/ hc4601.099487.
17. Davison K, Lawson CT. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2006; 3(1): 19. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-3-19.
18. McMillan TE. Urban Form and a Child’s Trip to School: The Current Literature and a Framework for Future Research. J Plan Lit 2005; 19(4): 44056. doi: 10.1177/0885412204274173.
19. Ding D, Bracy NL, Sallis JF, et al. Is Fear of Strangers Related to Physical Activity among Youth? Am J Heal Promot 2012; 26(3): 189-95.
doi: 10.4278/ajhp.100701-QUAN-224.
20. Panter JR, Jones AP, van Sluijs EM. Environmental determinants of active travel in youth: A review and framework for future research. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008; 5(1): 34. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-5-34.
21. World Health Organization (WHO). Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. WHO, 2008. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2010.514617.
22. D’Haese S, Vanwolleghem G, Hinckson E, et al. Cross-continental comparison of the association between the physical environment and active transportation in children: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015; 12(1): 145. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0308-z.
23. Ding D, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Lee S, Rosenberg DE. Neighborhood Environment and Physical Activity Among Youth. Am J Prev Med 2011; 41(4): 442-55. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.036.
24. Richardson AS, Troxel WM, Ghosh-Dastidar
MB, et al. One size doesn’t fit all: cross-sectional associations between neighborhood walkability, crime and physical activity depends on age and sex of residents. BMC Public Health 2017; 17(1): 97. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3959-z.
25). Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal. pmed.1000097.
26. Gori D, Rochira A, Ubiali A, Raguzzoni G, Fantini MP. How can we measure walkability for the pediatric population? A protocol for a systematic review of the literature. Available on: https://figshare.com/articles/How_can_ we_measure_walkability_for_the_pediatric_ population_A_protocol_for_a_systematic_review_of_the_literature_/5813670. Published 2018 [Last accessed: 2020, Feb 6].
27. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 2005; 331(7524): 1064-5. doi: 10.1136/ bmj.38636.593461.68.
28. Zuniga Teran AA. From Neighborhoods To Wellbeing And Conservation: Enhancing The Use Of Greenspace Through Walkability. Tucson, AZ, USA: University of Arizona, January 2015.
29. Duncan DT, Aldstadt J, Whalen J, Melly SJ, Gortmaker SL. Validation of Walk Score® for Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An Analysis of Four US Metropolitan Areas. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011; 8(12): 4160-79. doi: 10.3390/ijerph8114160.
30. Gebel K, Bauman A, Owen N. Correlates of Non-Concordance between Perceived and Objective Measures of Walkability. Ann Behav Med 2009; 37(2): 228-38. doi: 10.1007/s12160009-9098-3.
31. Humpel N, Marshall AL, Leslie E, Bauman A, Owen N. Changes in neighborhood walking are related to changes in perceptions of environmental attributes. Ann Behav Med 2004; 27(1): 60-7. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm2701_8.
32. van Stralen M, Lechner L, Mudde A, de Vries H, Bolman C. Active plus: The effect of adding community based information to a tailored physical activity intervention among the over-fifties.
Seventh Conference of the International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. Banff, Canada, 21-24 May 2008.
33. Boehmer TK, Hoehner CM, Wyrwich KW, Ramirez LKB, Brownson RC. Correspondence between Perceived and Observed Measures of Neighborhood Environmental Supports for Physical Activity. J Phys Act Health 2006; 3(1): 22-36. doi: 10.1123/jpah.3.1.22.
34. Donovan RJ. Target audiences and target behaviors. In: Kerr J, Weitkunat R, Moretti M. ABC of Behaviour Change: A Guide to Successful Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, 2005.
35. Brownson RC, Hoehner CM, Day K, Forsyth A, Sallis JF. Measuring the Built Environment for Physical Activity. Am J Prev Med 2009; 36(4): S99-S123.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.
amepre.2009.01.005.
36. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health 2003; 93(9): 1552-8. doi: 10.2105/ ajph.93.9.1552.
37. Committee on Physical Activity, Health, Transportation and Land Use. Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity: Examining the Evidence. Washington, DC, 2005 (TRB Special Report, 282). doi: 0-309-09498-4.
38. Forsyth A, Schmitz KH, Oakes M, Zimmerman J, Koepp J. Standards for Environmental Measurement Using GIS: Toward a Protocol for Protocols. J Phys Act Health 2006; 3(s1): S241-S257. doi: 10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s241.
39. Handy S, Clifton K. Evaluating Neighborhood Accessibility: Possibilities and Practicalities. J Transp Stat 2001; 4(August): 67-78. doi: http:// www.bts.gov/publications/journal_of_transportation_and_statistics/index.html.
40. Melnick AL, Fleming DW. Modern geographic information systems--promise and pitfalls. J Public Health Manag Pract 1999; 5(2): viii-x.
41. Porter DE, Kirtland KA, Neet MJ, Williams JE, Ainsworth BE. Considerations for using a geographic information system to assess environmental supports for physical activity. Prev Chronic Dis 2004; 1(4): A20.
42. Manaugh K, El-Geneidy AM. Validating walkability indices: How do different households respond to the walkability of their neighborhood? Transp Res D Transp Environ 2011; 16(4): 30915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.01.009.
43. Duncan DT. What’s your Walk Score®?: Webbased neighborhood walkability assessment for health promotion and disease prevention. Am J Prev Med 2013; 45(2): 244-5. doi: 10.1016/j. amepre.2013.04.008.
44. Hirsch JA, Moore KA, Evenson KR, Rodriguez DA, Roux AVD. Walk Score® and Transit Score® and Walking in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Am J Prev Med 2013; 45(2): 158-66. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.018.
45. Hirsch JA, Diez Roux AV, Moore KA, Evenson KR, Rodriguez DA. Change in Walking and Body Mass Index Following Residential Relocation: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Am J Public Health 2014; 104(3): e49-e56. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301773.
46. Brown SC, Pantin H, Lombard J, et al. Walk Score®: associations with purposive walking in recent Cuban immigrants. Am J Prev Med 2013; 45(2): 202-6. doi: 10.1016/j. amepre.2013.03.021.
47. Carr LJ, Dunsiger SI, Marcus BH. Walk Score™ As a Global Estimate of Neighborhood Walkability. Am J Prev Med 2010; 39(5): 460-3. doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2010.07.007.
48. Tuckel P, Milczarski W. Walk Score (TM), Perceived Neighborhood Walkability, and walking in the US. Am J Health Behav 2015; 39(2): 242-56. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.39.2.11.
49. Appolloni L, Corazza MV, D’Alessandro D. The pleasure of walking: an innovative methodology to assess appropriate walking performance in Urban areas to support transport planning. Sustainability 2019; 11: 3467. doi: 10.3390/ su11123467.
50. D’Alessandro D, Apolloni L, Capasso L. How walkable is the city? Application of the Walking Suitability Index of the Territory (T-WSI) to the city of Rieti (Lazio Region, Central Italy). Epidemiol Prev 2016; 40(3-4): 237-42. doi: 10.19191/ EP16.3-4.P237.090.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.