Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Environmental Medicine | Research article

Rethinking walkability and developing a conceptual definition of active living environments to guide research and practice

Authors: Melissa Tobin, Samantha Hajna, Kassia Orychock, Nancy Ross, Megan DeVries, Paul J. Villeneuve, Lawrence D. Frank, Gavin R. McCormack, Rania Wasfi, Madeleine Steinmetz-Wood, Jason Gilliland, Gillian L. Booth, Meghan Winters, Yan Kestens, Kevin Manaugh, Daniel Rainham, Lise Gauvin, Michael J. Widener, Nazeem Muhajarine, Hui Luan, Daniel Fuller

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Walkability is a popular term used to describe aspects of the built and social environment that have important population-level impacts on physical activity, energy balance, and health. Although the term is widely used by researchers, practitioners, and the general public, and multiple operational definitions and walkability measurement tools exist, there are is no agreed-upon conceptual definition of walkability.

Method

To address this gap, researchers from Memorial University of Newfoundland hosted “The Future of Walkability Measures Workshop” in association with researchers from the Canadian Urban Environmental Health Research Consortium (CANUE) in November 2017. During the workshop, trainees, researchers, and practitioners worked together in small groups to iteratively develop and reach consensus about a conceptual definition and name for walkability. The objective of this paper was to discuss and propose a conceptual definition of walkability and related concepts.

Results

In discussions during the workshop, it became clear that the term walkability leads to a narrow conception of the environmental features associated with health as it inherently focuses on walking. As a result, we suggest that the term Active Living Environments, as has been previously proposed in the literature, are more appropriate. We define Active Living Environments (ALEs) as the emergent natural, built, and social properties of neighbourhoods that promote physical activity and health and allow for equitable access to health-enhancing resources.

Conclusions

We believe that this broader conceptualization allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how built, natural, and social environments can contribute to improved health for all members of the population.
Literature
4.
go back to reference Hajna S, Ross NA, Griffin SJ, Dasgupta K. Lexical neutrality in environmental health research: Reflections on the term walkability. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–4.CrossRef Hajna S, Ross NA, Griffin SJ, Dasgupta K. Lexical neutrality in environmental health research: Reflections on the term walkability. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–4.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Forsyth A. What is a walkable place? The walkability debate in urban design. Urban Des Int. 2015;20(4):274–92.CrossRef Forsyth A. What is a walkable place? The walkability debate in urban design. Urban Des Int. 2015;20(4):274–92.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Gauvin L, Richard L, Craig CL, Spivock M, Riva M, Forster M, et al. From walkability to active living potential: An “ecometric” validation study. In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2005;28(2):126–33. Gauvin L, Richard L, Craig CL, Spivock M, Riva M, Forster M, et al. From walkability to active living potential: An “ecometric” validation study. In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2005;28(2):126–33.
10.
go back to reference EwingR RC. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. J Am Plan Assoc. 2010;76:265–94.CrossRef EwingR RC. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. J Am Plan Assoc. 2010;76:265–94.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Lo RH. Walkability: what is it? J Urban. 2009;2:145–66. Lo RH. Walkability: what is it? J Urban. 2009;2:145–66.
12.
go back to reference Spoon S. What defines walkability: Walking behaviour correlates. University of North Carolina; 2005 Spoon S. What defines walkability: Walking behaviour correlates. University of North Carolina; 2005
13.
go back to reference Grant B. Getting to Great Places: How better urban design can strengthen San Jose’s future. 2013. Grant B. Getting to Great Places: How better urban design can strengthen San Jose’s future. 2013.
14.
go back to reference Wang H, Yang Y. Neighbourhood walkability: A review and bibliometric analysis. Cities. 2019;93:43–61.CrossRef Wang H, Yang Y. Neighbourhood walkability: A review and bibliometric analysis. Cities. 2019;93:43–61.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Shashank A, Schuurman N. Unpacking walkability indices and their inherent assumptions. Heal Place. 2019;55:145–54.CrossRef Shashank A, Schuurman N. Unpacking walkability indices and their inherent assumptions. Heal Place. 2019;55:145–54.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Frank LD, Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transp Res Rec. 1994;1466:44–52. Frank LD, Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transp Res Rec. 1994;1466:44–52.
22.
go back to reference Lwin KK, Murayama Y. Modelling of urban green space walkability: Eco-friendly walk score calculator. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2011;35:408–20.CrossRef Lwin KK, Murayama Y. Modelling of urban green space walkability: Eco-friendly walk score calculator. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2011;35:408–20.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Larsen K, Gilliland J, Hess P, Tucker P, Irwin J, He M. The influence of the physical environment and sociodemographic characteristics on children’s mode of travel to and from school. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:520–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Larsen K, Gilliland J, Hess P, Tucker P, Irwin J, He M. The influence of the physical environment and sociodemographic characteristics on children’s mode of travel to and from school. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:520–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. 2002. Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. 2002.
25.
go back to reference Rutter H, Savona N, Glonti K, Bibby J, Cummins S, Finegood DT, et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet. 2017;390:2602–4.CrossRefPubMed Rutter H, Savona N, Glonti K, Bibby J, Cummins S, Finegood DT, et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet. 2017;390:2602–4.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference James P, Kioumourtzoglou M-A, Hart J, Banay R, Kloog I, Laden F. Interrelationships between Walkability, Air Pollution, Greenness, and Body Mass Index. Epidemiology. 2017;28:780–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral James P, Kioumourtzoglou M-A, Hart J, Banay R, Kloog I, Laden F. Interrelationships between Walkability, Air Pollution, Greenness, and Body Mass Index. Epidemiology. 2017;28:780–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference world Health Organisation. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion: First International Conference on Health Promotion. Ottawa; 1986 world Health Organisation. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion: First International Conference on Health Promotion. Ottawa; 1986
29.
go back to reference Cain KL, Millstein R, Geremia C. Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS): Data Collection & Scoring Manual Cain KL, Millstein R, Geremia C. Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS): Data Collection & Scoring Manual
30.
go back to reference Day K, Boarnet M, Afonzo M. Irvine Minnesota Inventory. 2005 Day K, Boarnet M, Afonzo M. Irvine Minnesota Inventory. 2005
33.
go back to reference Saelens B, Sallis J. Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS). 2002 Saelens B, Sallis J. Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS). 2002
34.
go back to reference Steinmetz-Wood M, Velauthapillai K, O’Brien G, Ross NA. Assessing the micro-scale environment using Google Street View: The Virtual Systematic Tool for Evaluating Pedestrian Streetscapes (Virtual-STEPS). BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1–11.CrossRef Steinmetz-Wood M, Velauthapillai K, O’Brien G, Ross NA. Assessing the micro-scale environment using Google Street View: The Virtual Systematic Tool for Evaluating Pedestrian Streetscapes (Virtual-STEPS). BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1–11.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Villeneuve PJ, Ysseldyk RL, Root A, Ambrose S, DiMuzio J, Kumar N, et al. Comparing the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index with the Google Street View Measure of Vegetation to Assess Associations between Greenness, Walkability, Recreational Physical Activity, and Health in Ottawa, Canada. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081719.CrossRefPubMedCentral Villeneuve PJ, Ysseldyk RL, Root A, Ambrose S, DiMuzio J, Kumar N, et al. Comparing the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index with the Google Street View Measure of Vegetation to Assess Associations between Greenness, Walkability, Recreational Physical Activity, and Health in Ottawa, Canada. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:1719. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijerph15081719.CrossRefPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Rethinking walkability and developing a conceptual definition of active living environments to guide research and practice
Authors
Melissa Tobin
Samantha Hajna
Kassia Orychock
Nancy Ross
Megan DeVries
Paul J. Villeneuve
Lawrence D. Frank
Gavin R. McCormack
Rania Wasfi
Madeleine Steinmetz-Wood
Jason Gilliland
Gillian L. Booth
Meghan Winters
Yan Kestens
Kevin Manaugh
Daniel Rainham
Lise Gauvin
Michael J. Widener
Nazeem Muhajarine
Hui Luan
Daniel Fuller
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12747-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Public Health 1/2022 Go to the issue