Walking routes to school in new urban and suburban neighborhoods: An environmental walkability analysis of blocks and routes
Graphical abstract
Figure represents how street form differs between suburban (left) and new urban (right) community designs. Suburban walking routes are indirect and lead from low-traffic streets to high traffic ones in order for children to get to school, explaining why fewer suburban children walked to school. New urban street grids allow direct routes to school that pass by pleasant open space and avoid high-traffic streets.
Highlights
► New urban blocks have more walkability features than standard suburban blocks. ► More fifth grade 11-year-olds walked to school when routes were in new urban areas. ► Suburban designs funnel children from low-traffic cul-de-sacs to high-traffic streets. ► New urban designs have routes exposing children to pleasant open spaces. ► New urban street forms and community design may enable more walking by children.
Introduction
Between 1969 and 2001 in the U.S., walking to school decreased from 40.7% to 12.9% (McDonald, 2007), a dramatic decline of over two-thirds. Since the 1960s and 1970s, children’s overall levels of physical activity have also declined (Salmon & Timperio, 2007) and youth obesity prevalence has tripled (LaFontaine, 2008). A recent review showed that walking to school was associated with healthier levels of measured physical activity (Lee, Orenstein, & Richardson, 2008).
To restore the option of healthy walks to school, communities must overcome three types of barriers: Macro level environmental barriers (e.g., long, indirect routes often associated with disconnected streets in low density suburban neighborhoods); micro level environmental barriers (e.g., insufficient crosswalks and traffic lights on a block); and perceived barriers (e.g., parent and student traffic concerns). We compared micro environmental barriers and perceived barriers for communities representing two distinct macro level design philosophies: Two standard suburban communities and one new urban LEED-ND pilot community (U.S. Green Building Council, 2007). We expected the new urban community to be more walkable according to environmental audits of micro level environmental features along both individual blocks and walking routes, especially with respect to consistency of traffic safety conditions. We anticipated that routes rated as more walkable by the audits would be perceived as more walkable by parents and students, and support more walking to school.
Section snippets
Macro walkability designs
Adults often walk more when they live in communities designed with “3Ds” of macro level walking supports: Greater residential Density, pedestrian-friendly Design, and Diversity of land uses and destinations (Cervero and Kockelman, 1997, Saelens and Handy, 2008). Although fewer studies have examined children’s walks, research has suggested that the 3Ds support their walks as well. Residential density brings more students within walking distance of their school, and pedestrian-friendly street
Micro walkability designs
The use of reliable walkability audits by trained raters to assess walkability for street blocks is a relatively new technique but provides a good way to operationalize walkability concepts and may enable planners to identify specific sites for walkability improvements. For example, when audits revealed poor walkability conditions in Safe Routes to Schools programs, children walked to school more after poor walkability street blocks received sidewalks, crosswalks, or other micro level
Parent and student perceptions of barriers
Sometimes parental reports have confirmed the importance of macro level environmental design features like the 3Ds. For example, parents reported that long distances, often associated with low residential densities, discouraged walking to school (McDonald, 2007, McDonald, 2008a, McDonald, 2008b, McMillan, 2007, MMWR, 2005, Ziviani et al., 2004). However, parents also cite micro level environmental barriers not included in macro level 3D measures. For example, parents reported concerns about
Community sites and walking routes
The selected communities’ macro level environmental features were good representations of new urban and suburban forms. For example, the new urban community had smaller median lot sizes: New urban community = 0.12 acres, mixed community = 0.25 acres, suburban community = 0.35 acres (Napier et al., 2011). The new urban community had well-connected streets (rectilinear and curvilinear grids), no cul-de-sacs, several small parks, protected open spaces, single family and town home residences, and
Community differences in walkability of blocks
The new urban community was more walkable than the other two communities on five of the six IMI block scales: Traffic safety, pleasurability, crime safety, density, and diversity (see ANOVA results, Table 1, first planned contrast column). As expected, that the blocks in the mixed community did not differ from the blocks in the suburban community (ps = n.s. from Table 1, second contrast column). The same analysis, substituting the block factor score in the last row of Table 1 for the separate 6
Discussion
Our analyses of blocks address whether broad areas around students’ homes and schools differed in walkability for each community. In contrast, the analyses of walking routes address whether students are exposed to good or poor walkability along commonly used pathways. The new urban community has a more walkable design than the mixed and suburban communities, according to our multiple types of walkability assessments. First, according to trained raters’ assessments with the IMI, new urban blocks
Conclusions
This is one of the few studies that assesses micro level environmental walkability features for new urban and standard suburban communities. Results suggest that new urbanist claims to more walkable communities are supported. The IMI assesses walkability features that are consistent with both new urban design philosophies and evolving LEED-ND standards for walkability. Furthermore, the evidence for walkability in this study is multifaceted, deriving from environmental audits by trained raters,
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by a 2006 Synergy seed grant for interdisciplinary urban systems research from the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of Utah, Craig Forster, PI. We appreciate the assistance of the school principals and teachers as well as the children and their parents. We appreciate the data collection assistance of Melissa Napier, Steve Burton, Rhonda Dzierzon, Matt Jackman, Gail Meakins, Aaron Norton, Alyssa Messina, Sofia Ahmed, and Shantel Thomas. We
References (43)
- et al.
Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School legislation: Urban form changes and children’s active transportation to school
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2005) - et al.
Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
(1997) - et al.
The Irvine Minnesota Inventory to measure built environments: Development
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2006) - et al.
Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2005) Active transportation to school – trends among US schoolchildren, 1969–2001
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2007)Critical factors for active transportation to school among low-income and minority students: Evidence from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2008)The relative influence of urban form on a child’s travel mode to school
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
(2007)- et al.
Walking to school: Community design and child and parent barriers
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2011) - et al.
Walkability and body mass index: Density, design, and new diversity measures
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2008) - et al.
Personal, family, social, and environmental correlates of active commuting to school
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2006)
Walkability and safety around elementary schools: Economic and ethnic disparities
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Barriers to and facilitators of walking and bicycling to school: Formative results from the non-motorized travel study
Health Education & Behavior
Irvine Minnesota Inventory for observation of physical environment features linked to physical activity
The Irvine-Minnesota Inventory to measure built environments: Reliability tests
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
California’s safe routes to school program: Impacts on walking, bicycling, and pedestrian safety
Journal of the American Planning Association
Neighborhood design and rates of walking and biking to elementary school in 34 California communities
American Journal of Health Promotion
New urban and standard suburban subdivisions: Evaluating psychological and social goals
Journal of the American Planning Association
Walkable route perceptions and physical features: Converging evidence for en route walking experiences
Environment and Behavior
Next American metropolis
School location and student travel – analysis of factors affecting mode choice
Transportation Planning and Analysis
Cited by (84)
Sustainable, walkable cities for the elderly: Identification of the built environment for walkability by activity purpose
2024, Sustainable Cities and Society“The Pedestrian Network Concept: A Systematic Literature Review”
2023, Journal of Urban MobilityInvestigating effects of environmental physical attributes on neighborhood walkability
2023, City and Environment InteractionsThe community food environment moderates the relationship between active commuting to school and child weight status
2022, Journal of Transport and HealthActive commuting to school: A longitudinal analysis examining persistence of behavior over time in four New Jersey cities
2022, Preventive Medicine ReportsCitation Excerpt :Therefore, instead of using frequency of ACS as a count variable, the outcome was dichotomized; those who actively commuted to school one or more days per week were coded as 1 and those who never walked, bicycled, or skateboarded were coded as 0. This approach has been widely used in the literature (DeWeese and Ohri-Vachaspati, 2015; Kerr et al., 2006; Babey et al., 2009; Evenson et al., 2006; Gallimore et al., 2011; Heelan et al., 2005; Robertson-Wilson et al., 2008; Rossen et al., 2011; Voorhees et al., 2010). The social ecological model (SEM), the theoretical framework for the NJCHS design, suggests that children’s behaviors can be influenced by child, household, school, and neighborhood environmental factors (McLeroy et al., 1988).
A systematic review of the factors associated with pedestrian route choice
2022, Transport Reviews