Walking routes to school in new urban and suburban neighborhoods: An environmental walkability analysis of blocks and routes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.01.001Get rights and content

Abstract

We assessed environmental and perceptual correlates of walking and walkability for fifth graders from three communities attending two schools: A new urban/LEED-ND pilot community, mixed, and standard suburban community. Irvine-Minnesota Inventory (IMI) walkability audits showed that new urban blocks provided more traffic safety, pleasurability, crime safety, density, and diversity. New urban routes offered greater traffic safety, accessibility, pleasurability, crime safety, and diversity, but suburban routes had greater housing density, net of controls (parental education, rooms in the home, home ownership, parent preference for child to walk to school). Parents and children perceived new urban routes to be more walkable and children walked more when they lived on more walkable routes. The suburban hierarchical street design exposed children to varied traffic safety conditions by funneling their walks from cul-de-sacs to arterials. The new urban routes to a centrally located school passed by pleasant open spaces, suggesting how community organization can create better walking conditions.

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.

  1. Download : Download full-size image

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)

  • X.M. Zhu et al.

    Walkability and safety around elementary schools: Economic and ethnic disparities

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    (2008)
  • K. Ahlport

    Barriers to and facilitators of walking and bicycling to school: Formative results from the non-motorized travel study

    Health Education & Behavior

    (2008)
  • M. Alfonzo et al.

    Irvine Minnesota Inventory for observation of physical environment features linked to physical activity

    (2005)
  • M.G. Boarnet et al.

    The Irvine-Minnesota Inventory to measure built environments: Reliability tests

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    (2006)
  • M.G. Boarnet et al.

    California’s safe routes to school program: Impacts on walking, bicycling, and pedestrian safety

    Journal of the American Planning Association

    (2005)
  • M. Braza et al.

    Neighborhood design and rates of walking and biking to elementary school in 34 California communities

    American Journal of Health Promotion

    (2004)
  • B.B. Brown et al.

    New urban and standard suburban subdivisions: Evaluating psychological and social goals

    Journal of the American Planning Association

    (2001)
  • B.B. Brown et al.

    Walkable route perceptions and physical features: Converging evidence for en route walking experiences

    Environment and Behavior

    (2007)
  • P. Calthorpe

    Next American metropolis

    (1993)
  • R. Ewing et al.

    School location and student travel – analysis of factors affecting mode choice

    Transportation Planning and Analysis

    (2004)
  • Gallimore, J. M., Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (2010). Rules and examples for creating consistent Irvine-Minnesota...
  • Cited by (84)

    • Active commuting to school: A longitudinal analysis examining persistence of behavior over time in four New Jersey cities

      2022, Preventive Medicine Reports
      Citation 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).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text