40876

l.Environment and Behavior

s) 2012

EAB45610.1177/001391651244087

ermissions:
ournalsPermissions.nav

Article

Public Open Space

and Walking:
The Role of Proximity,
Perceptual Qualities of
the Surrounding Built
Environment, and Street
Configuration

Environment and Behavior

45(6) 706736
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013916512440876
eab.sagepub.com

Mohammad Javad Koohsari1,

Justyna Anna Karakiewicz1, and
Andrew T. Kaczynski2
Abstract
This study examined how proximity and attractiveness of public open spaces
(POSs), perceptions of the surrounding built environment, and street configuration were associated with walking to and within POSs. Residents from
three neighborhoods in Melbourne (N = 335) completed a questionnaire
about walking and perceptions of their neighborhood, and geographic information systems and space syntax measures were used to assess proximity
of POSs and street configuration. Proximity and attractiveness of POSs were
not associated with POS-related walking. However, several perceptual qualities of the built environment, including safety from crime and traffic and aesthetics, were associated with greater walking. As well, persons living in areas
with the most integrated street configurations reported less POS-related
walking. Neighborhood perceptions and street configuration are key urban
design issues to consider in promoting residents use of POS for walking.

University of Melbourne, Melbourne,Victoria, Australia

University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA

Corresponding Author:
Mohammad Javad Koohsari, 2402/540 Lygon Street, Carlton,Victoria, 3053, Australia.
Email: koohsari@student.unimelb.edu.au and kouhsaary@yahoo.com

Koohsari et al.

707

Keywords
public open space, walking, proximity, perceptual qualities, street configuration,
built environment

Introduction
During the last decade, a burgeoning body of research, particularly in the
fields of public health, transportation, and urban design, has examined the
influence of the built environment on physical activity (PA). These studies
have adopted an ecological approach (Sallis et al., 2008) and have documented associations between multiple types of PA and various aspects of the
built environment, including residential density (Frank, Kerr, Chapman, &
Sallis, 2007; Wilson et al., 2011), street connectivity (Boone-Heinonen,
Popkin, Song, & Gordon-Larsen, 2010; Moudon et al., 2006), land-use mix
(McConville, Rodrguez, Clifton, Cho, & Fleischhacker, 2011; Troped,
Wilson, Matthews, Cromley, & Melly, 2010), neighborhood aesthetics
(Inoue et al., 2010; Kaczynski, 2010), and presence of sidewalks (Alfonzo,
Boarnet, Day, McMillan, & Anderson, 2008; Inoue et al., 2009).
It has also been shown that public open spaces (POSs) such as parks can
provide a variety of physical and social benefits to individuals and communities (Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, & Cohen, 2005; Kaczynski & Henderson,
2008). POSs such as parks and playgrounds not only provide places where
people can engage in PA such as walking, but they also can serve as interesting destinations that can persuade people to walk to reach them (BedimoRung et al., 2005; Sugiyama, Francis, Middleton, Owen, & Giles-Corti,
2010). Indeed, a rapidly growing body of literature has examined different
aspects of POSs in relation to PA (Aspinall et al., 2010; Giles-Corti,
Broomhall, et al., 2005; Hino, Reis, Parra, Brownson, & Fermino, 2010;
Kaczynski, Potwarka, & Saelens, 2008; Kaczynski, Potwarka, Smale, &
Havitz, 2009; Sugiyama et al., 2010; Sugiyama & Ward Thompson, 2008;
Timperio et al., 2008). However, this area of research has been limited in
several important ways. First, most of the previous studies have considered
only the impact of a single closest POS (e.g., Veitch et al., 2011; Witten,
Hiscock, Pearce, & Blakely, 2008) and many have used subjective indicators
for defining neighborhoods or walking distance to analyze the availability of POSs (e.g., Ries et al., 2009). These issues mean that the influence of
having multiple POSs with different attributes near participants homes is
ignored and also that differing interpretations of the study scale may produce
some inaccuracy in analyzing the availability and influence of nearby POSs.
Second, most of the studies examining the relationship between POSs and
PA have used a generalized PA measure such as total PA or total walking

708

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

measured via electronic monitoring (e.g., accelerometer) or self-report (for

an exception, see Kaczynski et al., 2009). This is problematic because it
ignores the location of participants PA, and it is likely that a substantial
amount of the total PA considered is unrelated to the POS exposure variables.
Thus, when a context-free behavioral outcome measure of overall PA is
used, relationships between proximity to or attributes of POS and the amount
of PA participants engage in could be biased (Giles-Corti, Timperio, Bull, &
Pikora, 2005).
Third, the role of self-selection in analyzing the impacts of POSs on PA
has not been addressed in the majority of past research. Self-selection in this
area of research refers to the tendency of people to choose locations based
on their travel abilities, needs, and preferences (Litman, 2011, p. 8). For
example, it is likely that people who prefer to walk choose to live in neighborhoods that are more convenient for walking. In such cases, demonstrating
a causal relationship between the built environment and walking can be problematic. In a recent study, Kaczynski and Mowen (2011) reported that selfselection did not solely account for the observed associations between POS
availability and PA. Nevertheless, if self-selection potentially exists in a
study, but is not controlled for, estimates of associations between the built
environment and PA could be biased.
Fourth, in most of the previous studies, participants were chosen from
areas with similar built environment characteristics (e.g., Sugiyama et al.,
2010) or they were randomly selected from the entire population without
fully considering the physical characteristics of their locations (e.g., GilesCorti, Broomhall, et al., 2005; Hillsdon, Panter, Foster, & Jones, 2006;
Timperio et al., 2008). To assure sufficient variation in built environment
characteristics, participants should be selected from heterogeneous environments (Giles-Corti, Timperio, et al., 2005). In parallel with this variety in the
built environment, participants should be from homogeneous socioeconomic
environments (unless socioeconomic status [SES] is a focus of the study). In
other words, the sample must maximize variability in contexts while minimizing variability in residents background characteristics (Oakes, Forsyth,
& Schmitz, 2007, p. 2).
Fifth, most research on parks and PA has largely focused on three factors
related to the POSproximity, attractiveness, and sizewith less attention
paid to perceptual characteristics of the surrounding built environment that
encompasses the POSs and through which people must move to reach the
POS. These characteristics not only moderate the influence of the three aforementioned POS factors on PA, they may also have a direct influence themselves on residents engagement in neighborhood PA. For example, many

Koohsari et al.

709

studies have reported that perceptions of environmental attributes such as

aesthetics, safety from crime, traffic, and the availability of facilities for
walking (e.g., sidewalks, trails) can affect the frequency and duration of
walking (Duncan, Spence, & Mummery, 2005; Kaczynski, 2010; Owen,
Humpel, Leslie, Bauman, & Sallis, 2004; Parra et al., 2011; Shigematsu et al.,
2009; Wallmann, Bucksch, & Froboese, 2011).
Finally, and a key point related to the present study, the role of street
design around POSs has not yet been examined in relation to residents walking to POS. Several studies in the broader built environment literature have
explored the association between street configuration and different types of
walking (Berrigan, Pickle, & Dill, 2010; Mecredy, Pickett, & Janssen, 2011;
Oakes et al., 2007). However, street configuration has been mainly examined
as street connectivity, which is defined as the directness and availability of
alternative routes from one point to another within a street network
(Transportation Research Board & Institute of Medicine, 2005, p. 104).
Although valuable for some purposes, this idea is not completely representative of the street configuration concept.
Spatial configuration refers to the topology and relations among spaces,
which take into account all other relations in a system (Marshall, 2005;
Vaughan, 2007). Thus, street configuration is a more complex idea than spatial relation, which invokes no more than a pair of related spaces (Hillier,
Hanson, & Graham, 1987, p. 363). Many measures have been applied to calculate the connectivity of streets in an area, including intersection density
(Cerin et al., 2011), average block length (Mecredy et al., 2011), median
block size of an area (Oakes et al., 2007), or link-node ratio (Gmez et al.,
2010); for a full list of different measures, see Dill (2004) and Berrigan et al.,
(2010). However, these measures are limited to the local and discrete characteristics of streets and can be calculated without regard for how the streets
in an area are connected together (Baran, Rodrguez, & Khattak, 2008). For
example, two neighborhoods may have similar levels of street connectivity
(e.g., intersection density, block size, etc.) but may have entirely different
street patterns. In contrast, space syntax takes into account the topological
dimension of the streets in an area and how they form a system that pedestrians and motorists must traverse in moving between destinations.
Addressing this limitation, a few recent studies have started to use space
syntax theory to examine the influence of street configuration on specific
context-based walking (Baran et al., 2008; Ozbil, Peponis, & Stone, 2011).
Space syntax was introduced mainly in architecture studies about three
decades ago by the work of Hillier and Hanson (1984) and is defined as a set
of techniques for the representation, quantification, and interpretation of

710

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

spatial configuration in buildings and settlements (Hillier et al., 1987, p.

363; for a review of this theory, see Bafna, 2003; Peponis & Wineman, 2002;
Vaughan, 2007). Pedestrian movement was the initial focus of space syntax
theory (Ratti, 2004), but it has been applied in a wide range of spatial aspects,
including space and crime (Hillier, 2004), environmental cognition (Kim &
Penn, 2004; Penn, 2003), and spatial segregation (Lima, 2001; Vaughan,
2007). Space syntax theory states that spatial configuration influences the
distribution of movement within a network system and that when spaces are
more directly connected to other spaces, this is likely to attract more movement (Peponis & Wineman, 2002). By taking into account spatial topological
relations, using space syntax has great potential to explore how the street
configuration of peoples locations can affect their specific-context walking.
In summary, the current study aims to build on the limitations of past
research that were described above. Specifically, its purpose was to examine
the influence of proximity to and attractiveness of POSs, perceptual qualities
of the built environment surrounding POSs, and street configuration on walking to and within POS. Better understanding of how multiple contextual factors of park and neighborhood environments influence walking in a specific
context can provide academics and professionals in urban design and parks
and recreation with sound evidence on which to base future research and
planning aimed at improving residents PA and health.

Method
Study Area
This study occurred in three diverse neighborhoods of Melbourne, Australia,
in 2011. To ensure variety in the street configurations within participants
neighborhoods, a street configuration typology developed by Marshall
(2005) was used to select the study areas. Specifically, Marshall identified
four types of street patterns, labeled A, B, C, and D, ranging from the core
of a settlement to the periphery. Type A refers to the core area of old
cities, Type B is a grid pattern, Type C is a mixture of regularity and
irregularity and streets typically curved or rectangular, and Type D is a
hierarchical layout associated with many cul-de-sacs. In this study, as
shown in Figure 1, only the latter three patterns were included as Type A is
absent in Melbourne because it was originally a planned settlement with a
grid layout core. Each of the three neighborhoods included several Census
Collection Districts, with the Type B neighborhood covering 35 hectares, the
Type C neighborhood 23 hectares, and the Type D neighborhood 39 hectares.

Koohsari et al.

711

Figure 1. Areas from where participants were selected.

It has also been well-demonstrated that SES at the individual level (Burton
& Turrell, 2000; Crespo, Ainsworth, Keteyian, Heath, & Smit, 1999; Janssen,
Boyce, Simpson, & Pickett, 2006) and the area level (Kavanagh et al., 2005;
Ross & Mirowsky, 2008; Rundle et al., 2008; Shishehbor, Gordon-Larsen,
Kiefe, & Litaker, 2008; Yen & Kaplan, 1998) can influence PA such as walking. Therefore, to control the area-level SES in selecting the study areas, the
socioeconomic index for area (SEIFA) index of advantages/disadvantages
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008) was applied. The selected areas with
different street layouts were all selected from the lowest four deciles of the
index. As well, all study areas were examined and excluded if they contained
a physical barrier such as a freeway that could considerably affect participants travel behavior.

Data Collection
The geocoded addresses for all parcels in these three areas were obtained
using the VICMAP address dataset (Department of Sustainability and
Environment, 2009). The type of land use for individual parcels was checked
using interactive maps provided online by the Victorian Department of
Sustainability and Environment. Addresses of all nonresidential parcels were
removed from the database and 330 households were then selected from each
area (which included more than half of the number of households in each
area). A self-administered questionnaire (labeled with an address code) and

712

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

an enclosed postage-paid return envelope were sent to all 990 addresses in

May 2011. Two weeks later, a reminder letter was sent to households that had
yet to respond. In addition, an online version of the questionnaire was created
and described within the reminder letter as an option for participating in the
study. Finally, 1 month after the first questionnaire was sent, households that
still had not yet responded were visited in person asking them to complete
the questionnaire.

Measures
Walking to and within POS. The outcome measure in this study was a specific context-based type of walkingwalking to and within POSs. The questions were modeled around those used in the International Physical Activity
Questionnaire (Craig et al., 2003) and the Neighborhood Physical Activity
Questionnaire (Giles-Corti et al., 2006) and asked about the frequency and
duration of walking to and within POSs. Specifically, participants first
reported the number of days within the past 7 days that they had walked to a
POS like a park or playground within their neighborhood. Those who reported
some walking to POSs were then asked the average amount of time spent
doing so per day. The same two frequency and duration questions were then
asked about walking within neighborhood POSs during the past 7 days.
Neighborhood was defined for participants as the area within a 10-15 min
walk from home.
POS attractiveness and proximity. In this study, the Open Space 2002 dataset
(Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology, 2003), which includes 14
types of POSs, including parks and playgrounds classified by the level of
access (no public access, restricted public access, and full public access), was
used to identify POSs. Across the three study areas, the predominant types of
POS were parks or playgrounds as the other POSs like some small gardens or
reserved lands were only less than 5% of all POSs.
Two types of factors related to the POS were examinedattractiveness
and proximity. Attractiveness was deemed important to consider because
several studies have shown that POS features such as landscaping, trees,
water, and maintenance can influence POS usage (Giles-Corti, Broomhall,
et al., 2005; Sugiyama et al., 2010; Timperio et al., 2008). Attractiveness can
be measured objectively via on-site observation (e.g., Giles-Corti, Broomhall,
et al., 2005), but such audits are time-consuming and expensive and do not
capture study participants perceptions of nearby POSs. Alternatively, attractiveness can be assessed subjectively using residents evaluation of the quality of neighborhood POS. In this study, the latter method was used and

Koohsari et al.

713

participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with a single statement: There are attractive POSs like parks and playgrounds in my neighborhood (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). Again, neighborhood was
defined as a 10 to 15 min walk from home.
Three factors related to proximity to POSs were measured objectively
through geographic information systems (GIS). Network distance, which is
more appropriate than Euclidean distance (Apparicio, Abdelmajid, Riva, &
Shearmur, 2008; Comber, Brunsdon, & Green, 2008; Nicholls, 2001; Witten,
Exeter, & Field, 2003), was used to calculate the distance between each participants home and the nearest POS. In addition, a 1-km network buffer
around each participants home was created to determine the number of POS
and the total area of POS that fell into this catchment area. The 1-km buffer
is similar to that used in several past studies of PA and parks or the built environment (Frank, Schmid, Sallis, Chapman, & Saelens, 2005; Kaczynski
et al., 2009; Lee & Moudon, 2008; Lovasi et al., 2008). In addition, 1 km is
likely to be a reasonable walkable distance and the area within 1 km from
home usually is perceived by residents as a part of their walkable neighborhood (Lee, 2004; Moudon et al., 2006).
Characteristics of the neighborhood environment. Perceptions of characteristics of the neighborhood environment that can influence walking, including
aesthetics, safety from traffic, safety from crime, and the availability of facilities for walking, were measured using related sections of an Australian version of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS-AU). The
original NEWS is a self-report instrument that has demonstrated good reliability and validity in several past studies (Adams et al., 2009; Brownson
et al., 2004; Cerin, Saelens, Sallis, & Frank, 2006; Saelens, Sallis, Black, &
Chen, 2003). The NEWS-AU is a modified version developed by Leslie and
colleagues (2005) for the Australian context and its validity has been reported
by Cerin, Leslie, Owen, and Bauman (2008).
Two space syntax measures, local integration and control, were applied to
analyze street configuration. Integration, shown in Figure 2, refers to the
average depth of a space to all other spaces in the system (Klarqvist, 1993,
p. 11). It is a function of the mean depth (number of connections that must
be traversed) if one were to move from every space . . . to every other space
on a network (Peponis & Wineman, 2002, P. 273). In other words, a traveler
requires fewer turns to reach a highly integrated street, whereas less integrated streets (typically like cul-de-sacs) require more changes in directions
to arrive at ones destination (Kostakos, 2010). Integration can be calculated
for each space; one calculation considers all the spaces in the system (global
integration) and another is limited to a certain number of (usually three)

714

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

Figure 2. Local integration measure of selected areas.

Note: Heavy darker lines show higher local integration.

neighboring spaces (local integration). The latter was considered in this

study, as pedestrian movement is influenced more by the integration at a local
scale (Ratti, 2004). As depicted in Figure 3, control refers to the degree to

Koohsari et al.

715

which a space controls access to its immediate neighbours taking into account
the number of alternative connections that each of these neighbours has
(Klarqvist, 1993, p. 12). For example, a street connected to several cul-desacs has to be moved through to reach those cul-de-sacs so it has high control
(Kostakos, 2010). These measures are explained in detail elsewhere (Hillier
& Hanson, 1984; Penn, Hillier, Banister, & Xu, 1998).
To measure integration and control corresponding to the addresses of the
participants, axial maps of selected areas that accounted for all the spaces
vehicular and pedestrianbetween buildings were constructed using UCL
DepthMap software version 10 (developed by Alasdair Turner at University
College in London) and then refined by hand. In this study, axial maps for the
pedestrian network were developed, rather than for the vehicular network, as
studies have shown that using a pedestrian network could increase the overall
connectivity of a place, especially in newer, less-connected (e.g., cul-de-sac)
neighborhoods (Chin, Van Niel, Giles-Corti, & Knuiman, 2008). The two
space syntax measures were calculated for all axial lines in the three neighborhoods using Axwoman 4 (Jiang, Claramunt, & Klarqvist, 2000) as an
extension in ArcGIS 9.2. Then, using a spatial join in ArcGIS 9.2, specific
values for integration and control were assigned to each participant according
to the street on which their home was located.
Sociodemographic variables. The questionnaire also captured several
sociodemographic variables, including the participants age, gender, employment status, annual household income, and education level. In addition, two
other itemsthe presence of children less than 12 years in the household and
having a dogwere included as previous studies have demonstrated that
these factors can influence ones level of walking (Cutt, Knuiman, & GilesCorti, 2008; Hull et al., 2010; Sjogren, Hansson, & Stjernberg, 2011).
Finally, to partially control for issues related to self-selection (i.e., a preference for living near POSs), an attitudinal measure was included in the questionnaire. Using a scale developed by Frank, Saelens, Powell, and Chapman (2007),
participants were asked to rate the importance of several factors in their decision to live in their current neighborhood. This analysis used the variable
closeness to POSs like parks and playgrounds which was rated on a 5-point
scale ranging from not at all important (1) to very important (5).

Analyses
Two types of regression models were used to analyze the data. First,
the outcome variable, walking to or within POS, was dichotomized into
some walking versus no walking and all participants were included in a

716

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

Figure 3. Control measure of selected areas.

Note: Heavy darker lines show higher control.

binary logistic regression analysis to examine the factors associated with

higher odds of any walking to or within POS. In addition, to identify factors
associated with the amount of walking to and within POS, those participants

Koohsari et al.

717

who reported any walking were included in a linear regression model with
the aggregate amount of walking to and within POS (minutes per week) used
as the outcome variable. To moderate the effects of skewness, the total minutes values were normalized using a log10 transformation. All models were
adjusted for several control variables, including all sociodemographic variables and responses to the self-selection measure. All analyses were conducted using SPSS 17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

Results
From a total of 990 questionnaires that were mailed, 40 were undeliverable
and 335 were returned (response rate = 35.3%). Of these, 257 (77%) were
returned via mail, 36 (11%) were completed online, and 42 (12%) were garnered from in-person visits. In addition, 110 respondents (response rate =
35.6%) lived in the Type B neighborhood, 121 respondents (response rate =
37.7%) lived in the Type C neighborhood, and 104 respondents (response
rate = 32.5%) lived in the Type D neighborhood. Of the 320 participants who
provided usable data, 56% were female, the mean age was 44 years (SD =
15), 66% had completed a tertiary degree, 64% were employed, 39% had an
annual income more than AU$80,000, 25% had a dog, and 26% had children
under 12 years in the household. A total of 181 participants (57%) reported
some weekly walking to or within POS. Characteristics of the sample
according to those who engaged in some weekly walking to and within POS
and those who did not are shown in Table 1. Among people who reported
at least some walking to and within POS, the average walking time was
144 min per week (SD = 117 min), with a median of 120 min per week.
Table 2 shows the results of the logistic regression analysis exploring factors
related to engaging in at least some walking to or within POS (vs. no walking).
None of the four POS factorsnearest POS (odds ratio [OR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.99, 1.00]), number of POS within 1 km (OR = 1.01,
95% CI = [0.99, 1.03]), total area of POS within 1 km (OR = 1.00, 95% CI =
[0.99-1.01]), or attractiveness of POS (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = [0.65, 1.30])were
significantly associated with an increased likelihood of walking to or within
POS. Likewise, the self-selection variable measuring preferences for living
near POS was not significant either (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = [0.33, 1.28]). With
respect to perceptions of the surrounding built environment, safety from traffic
(OR = 3.28, 95% CI = [1.43, 7.55]) was the strongest predictor of walking to or
within POS (Table 2). In addition, safety from crime (OR = 2.17, 95% CI =
[1.02, 4.61]) and aesthetics (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = [1.04, 4.52]) were both significantly associated with walking to or within POS, but neighborhood

718

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

Table 1. Characteristics of Study Participants.

Participant characteristics
Total sample
Gender
Female
Male
Age
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
>75
Education level
Did not complete year 12
Completed VCE
Completed trade or TAFE
Completed tertiary degree
Employment status
Employed
Unemployed
Retired
Student
Other
Annual income
<AU$20,000
AU$20,000-AU$40,000
AU$40,000-AU$60,000
AU$60,000-AU$80,000
>AU$80,000
Dog ownership
Yes
No
Child <12 years in household
Yes
No

Total number
(%)

Some walking
to or within
POS (%)

No walking
to or within
POS (%)

320

181

139

180 (56)
131 (41)

97 (54)
78 (43)

83 (60)
53 (38)

21 (7)
81 (25)
75 (23)
60 (18)
43 (13)
21 (7)
14 (4)

12 (7)
34 (19)
48 (26)
36 (20)
27 (15)
13 (7)
7 (4)

9 (6)
47 (34)
27 (19)
24 (17)
16 (11)
8 (6)
7 (5)

21 (7)
34 (10)
49 (15)
211 (66)

12 (7)
20 (11)
33 (18)
113 (62)

9 (6)
14 (10)
16 (11)
98 (70)

206 (64)
4 (1)
48 (15)
33 (10)
28 (9)

121 (67)
2 (1)
27 (15)
16 (9)
14 (8)

85 (61)
2 (1)
21 (15)
17 (12)
14 (10)

13 (4)
29 (9)
47 (15)
56 (18)
124 (39)

8 (4)
15 (8)
25 (14)
32 (18)
69 (38)

5 (4)
14 (10)
22 (16)
24 (17)
55 (40)

80 (25)
240 (75)

56 (31)
125 (69)

24 (17)
115 (83)

84 (26)
232 (73)

62 (34)
117 (65)

22 (16)
115 (83)

Note: VCE = Victorian Certificate of Education; TAFE = Technical and Further Education.

719

Koohsari et al.

Table 2. Association of POS and Neighborhood Variables With Some Walking To or

Within POS.
Some walking to/within POS

OR

Self-selection
Closeness to POS
0.65
Factors related to POS
Nearest POS
1.00
Number of POS within 1 km
1.01
Total area of POS within 1 km
1.00
Attractiveness of POS
0.92
Perceptual qualities of the surrounding built environment
Facilities for walking
0.65
Aesthetics
2.17*
Safety from traffic
3.28**
Safety from crime
2.17*
Street configuration
Local integration
0.66*
Control
0.72*

95% CI
[0.33, 1.28]
[0.99, 1.00]
[0.99, 1.03]
[0.99, 1.01]
[0.65, 1.30]
[0.29, 1.44]
[1.04, 4.52]
[1.43, 7.55]
[1.02, 4.61]
[0.46, 0.95]
[0.56, 0.93]

Note: OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Analysis controlled for sociodemographic

variables (age, gender, employment status, income, education level, dog ownership, and children
in household).
*p < .05. **p < .01.

facilities for walking (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = [0.29, 1.44]) were not. Somewhat
surprisingly, both street configuration measureslocal integration (OR = 0.66,
95% CI = [0.46, 0.95]) and control (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = [0.56, 0.93])demonstrated a significant negative association with engaging in at least some
walking to or within POS (Table 2). Furthermore, among the sociodemographic
variables, people living in a household with a child less than 12 years (OR =
4.62, 95% CI = [2, 10.66]) or who owned a dog (OR = 2.47, 95% CI = [1.10,
5.57]) were significantly more likely to walk to or within POS (data not shown).
The multiple regression analysis examining only those participants who
engaged in at least some walking to or within POS is presented in Table 3.
Again, none of the four POS factorsnearest POS, number of POS within 1
km, total area of POS within 1 km, or POS attractivenessor the self-selection variable were significantly associated with the total amount of walking
to or within POS. However, there were significant, positive associations for
two perceptual qualities of the surrounding built environment: facilities for

720

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

Table 3. Association of POS and Neighborhood Variables With Amount of Walking

To or Within POS.
Amount of total walking to/within POS

Self-selection
Closeness to POS
Factors related to POS
Nearest POS
Number of POS within 1 km
Total area of POS within 1 km
Attractiveness of POS
Perceptual qualities of the surrounding
built environment
Facilities for walking
Aesthetics
Safety from traffic
Safety from crime
Street configuration
Local integration
Control

Standardized

t value

0.03

0.33

0.08
0.12
0.01
0.01

0.89
1.54
0.90
1.28

0.20*
0.16
0.17
0.23*

2.16
1.68
1.68
2.23

0.13
0.21*

1.26
2.12

Note: Analysis controlled for sociodemographic variables (age, gender, employment status,
income, education level, dog ownership, and children in household).
*p < .05.

walking ( = .20) and safety from crime ( = .23). Finally, control was the
only street configuration variable significantly related to the amount of walking and in a negative direction ( = .21). None of the sociodemographic
variables were significantly associated with the total amount of walking to or
within POS.

Discussion
Parks are important settings for attracting active travel and for encouraging
PA therein (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; Moody et al., 2004; Stanis, Schneider,
& Pereira, 2010). However, research to date is limited on how characteristics
of parks and the neighborhoods around them influence walking. Therefore,
this study examined how multiple factors related to POSs, perceptual qualities of participants neighborhood environments, and street configuration

Koohsari et al.

721

were associated with participants levels of walking specifically to and

within POS.

Factors Related to POS

The study showed three park proximity variablesnearest POS, number of
POS within 1 km, and total area of POS within 1 kmpredicted neither any
walking nor the amount of walking to and within POS. These findings are
consistent with some previous studies that reported proximity or distance to
POS was unrelated to residents PA levels (Jilcott, Evenson, Laraia, &
Ammerman, 2007; McGinn, Evenson, Herring, Huston, & Rodriguez, 2007;
Witten et al., 2008). In contrast, many other studies have demonstrated an
association between various measures of POS proximity and PA (Cohen
et al., 2007; Frank, Kerr, et al., 2007; Giles-Corti, Broomhall, et al., 2005; Li,
Fisher, Brownson, & Bosworth, 2005; Roemmich et al., 2006; Roux et al.,
2007; Sugiyama et al., 2010). As discussed by Kaczynski et al. (2009), distance might influence behavior, but not in a linear function. For example, the
effects of proximity to POS on a behavior like walking could start after a
threshold distance. In our study, the maximum average distance to POS for
participants was 651 meters and this relatively limited range may be one
reason for observing a lack of a relationship between proximity to POS and
PA. In addition, past studies have employed a variety of objective and subjective approaches in measuring proximity, which may contribute to inconsistencies across study findings. The current study applied objective
measures in calculating proximity, and it is possible that disparate results
would be observed if subjective measures were used. Indeed, it has been
shown that the agreement between objective and subjective measures of the
built environment is low (Arvidsson, Kawakami, Ohlsson, & Sundquist,
2012; Ball et al., 2008; Boehmer, Hoehner, Wyrwich, Brennan Ramirez, &
Brownson, 2006; McCormack, Cerin, Leslie, Du Toit, & Owen, 2008) and
they have different impacts on PA (Lin & Moudon, 2010; McCormack et al.,
2008). Future researchers may wish to combine objective and subjective
measures of proximity to POS to obtain more comprehensive results.
Attractiveness of POS also made no contribution in influencing walking to
and within POS. This result is in contrast with previous studies that showed a
significant association between the attractiveness or features of POS and
walking or other PA behavior (Giles-Corti, Broomhall, et al., 2005; Kaczynski
et al., 2008; Sugiyama et al., 2010). However, in the present study, residents
perceptions were used to gauge the attractiveness of their neighborhood
parks, rather than the research team collecting such information through

722

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

observational audits. We chose to use a subjective measure to provide a novel

perspective on how residents ratings of park attractiveness influence their
walking to and within POS. As well, past research has shown that people
have only limited knowledge of the proximity or attributes of local parks
(Lackey & Kaczynski, 2009; Macintyre, Macdonald, & Ellaway, 2008;
Spotts & Stynes, 1984). Therefore, simply adding physical features (e.g.,
courts, restrooms, landscaping) into existing POSs to increase attractiveness
might not be helpful in improving peoples perceptions of those POSs and
subsequently encouraging them to walk to and within these destinations.
Future studies should examine how specific POSs physical features influence residents knowledge of POS and their perceptions of POS attractiveness and how, in turn, this translates into increased walking to and within
POS. Such research can contribute to the development of more effective policies and investment in equipping POSs with physical features that promote
pride in local parks and use of them for PA.
Finally, issues related to self-selection did not appear to be a factor in our
sample as participants preferences for living close to POSs were not associated with any walking or the amount of total walking to and within POS.
Using a similar measure to ours, Kaczynski and Mowen (2011) reported that
self-selection did not fully account for the relationship between park availability and PA, but future studies should more comprehensively examine
such issues as they relate to POS and walking to or within POS specifically
(for a comprehensive review of different methods of addressing selfselection, see Cao, Mokhtarian, & Handy, 2009; Mokhtarian & Cao, 2008).

Perceptual Qualities of the Surrounding Built Environment

Participants perceptions of several qualities of the surrounding built environment were significantly associated with any walking and with the amount
of walking to and within POS. Consistent with previous evidence emphasizing the role of safety from crime in facilitating PA (Ellaway, Macintyre, &
Bonnefoy, 2005; Harrison, Gemmell, & Heller, 2007), our study found this
to be an important factor influencing the amount of residents POS-related
walking. Perceived or objective danger from crime could prevent people
from walking in public spaces such as streets or parks (Sallis & Kerr, 2006),
and therefore, developing policies to improve safety from crime in POSs
could positively influence peoples walking.
However, the contribution of other qualities was different in predicting
some walking versus none and in increasing the amount of walking among
those who did walk to or within POS. For example, facilities for walking had
no effect on predicting some walking to and within POS, but did demonstrate

Koohsari et al.

723

a significant positive association with the total amount of walking. Carnegie

et al. (2002) found that perceptions of practical features of the built environment are significantly related to levels of PA. For example, people who walk
may have better awareness of their surrounding environment in comparison
with those who do not walk within their neighborhood; the former group
may, therefore, be more familiar with facilities and barriers for walking available within the built environment (McCormack et al., 2008). Consequently, it
is likely that the importance of environmental factors influencing walking
might differ for people who walk and those who do not, and thus new policies
in encouraging walking should be developed to target both groups (e.g.,
physical improvements for people who are already somewhat active and promotion of available infrastructure for those who are not).
In addition, perceptions of safety from traffic and aesthetics were significantly related to engaging in some walking to and within POS, but not to the
amount of total walking (among those who engaged in at least some).
Jacobsen, Racioppi, and Rutter (2009), in their review of the literature of
several fields (including public health, planning, and transportation), concluded that evidence shows real and perceived danger from traffic can negatively affect walking and bicycling. Likewise, Lee and Moudon (2008) found
traffic volume was reported by their participants as the most significant barrier for walking and cycling. Other studies have shown aesthetics to be a key
variable influencing walking and other PA in ones neighborhood (Carnegie
et al., 2002; Inoue et al., 2010; Kaczynski, 2010). Another recent study
reported similar results to ours in that some key neighborhood perceptions,
including aesthetics and safety, were associated with engaging in any recreational PA within the neighborhood, but not with the total amount of recreational neighborhood-based PA (Kaczynski, 2010). Consistent with that
article, we might conclude that a positive perception of ones neighborhood
acts as a trigger to stimulate at least some activity among residents, but may
not differentiate between those who are somewhat active and those who are
very active. Nevertheless, more inviting neighborhoodsincluding those
that are safe and aesthetically-pleasingmay facilitate at least some walking
to and within POS among the large mass of sedentary population.

Street Configurations
Our results related to street configuration showed, interestingly, a significant
negative impact of local integration and control on POS-related walking
behavior. Specifically, people living on street segments that had high control
and high local integration reported less walking behavior related to POS
compared with people living on street segments with low control and low

724

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

local integration. This result concurs partially with the only previous study
to date that analyzed space syntax measures associated with specific types of
walking (Baran et al., 2008). Those authors reported that local integration
negatively influences leisure walking, but that residents on higher control
segments showed more leisure walking.
There has been overwhelming evidence in the broader built environment
literature supporting the idea that high street connectivity can increase PA
such as walking (e.g., Badland, Schofield, & Garrett, 2008; Cleland, Timperio,
& Crawford, 2008; Frank et al., 2005; Lee & Moudon, 2008; Pearce &
Maddison, 2011; Saelens, Sallis, & Frank, 2003), though other studies have
found no such association (Gmez et al., 2010; Mecredy et al., 2011). To
analyze the role of street connectivity on walking, it is worthwhile to differentiate between various types of walking, because it has been shown that the
significance of built environment factors could be different for the two main
types of walkingwalking for transport and walking for recreation (Cao,
Handy, & Mokhtarian, 2006; Hoehner, Brennan Ramirez, Elliott, Handy,
& Brownson, 2005; Humpel, Owen, Iverson, Leslie, & Bauman, 2004;
Kaczynski, 2010; Lee & Moudon, 2006; Troped, Saunders, Pate, Reininger,
& Addy, 2003). In their comprehensive review, Saelens and Handy (2008)
found little or no evidence for an association between street connectivity and
recreational walking.
Assuming that walking to and within POS is largely recreational in nature,
our street configuration results are consistent with studies showing street
connectivity has a negative effect on leisure walking (Oakes et al., 2007).
High street connectivity can be helpful in walking for transport as people
prefer to reach destinations as directly and quickly as possible, but it is likely
that distance and time are not as important for people who want to walk for
leisure. In addition, more connected areas inevitably encourage increased
vehicular traffic that is dispersed across all streets in a neighborhood and
which may have a negative effect on the safety and enjoyment of walking.
Indeed, Lecks (2006) meta-analysis found that more rigid grid patterns
increased the probability for using cars.
More connected street patterns, such as the grid layouts of the core areas
of many cities, have recaptured their popularity in walking-friendly urban
planning. However, the practical evidence is insufficient to draw such a
definitive conclusion about the superiority of such designs. Despite much
debate admonishing cul-de-sac street patterns (see Southworth & BenJoseph, 2003), these patterns do not discourage all types of walking and have
been shown to be at least somewhat successful in encouraging leisure or recreational walking. For example, the results of a recent study showed that

Koohsari et al.

725

children who live in a cul-de-sac spend more time playing in their streets
(Veitch, Salmon, & Ball, 2010) and also devote less time to using computers
or electronic games (Veitch et al., 2011). In addition, Handy, Cao, and
Mokhtarian (2008) reported that cul-de-sacs were an important factor in
encouraging outdoor play among children aged 6 to 12 years. Among adults,
Oakes et al. (2007) reported increased odds of leisure walking in low connectivity areas. More connected layouts might be good for transport walking,
but whether they can facilitate recreational PA, especially among adults, is
still not clear and requires further study. Greater use of space syntax theory,
which takes into account the topology of the street layout, has the potential to
more comprehensively examine the relationship between street configuration
and different types of walking.

Limitations
This study had several limitations. For example, like other cross-sectional
studies that form the majority of the built environment and PA literature, we
are unable to draw causal relationships between POSs and neighborhood
attributes and behavior. Nevertheless, this study did attempt to partially control for the issue of self-selection. In addition, a self-reported measure of
walking to and within POS could introduce some problems related to recall
error (Sallis & Saelens, 2000). Another limitation was reporting bias [or
source bias (Brownson, Hoehner, Day, Forsyth, & Sallis, 2009)], which
occurs when the same person is asked for both exposure (built environment)
and outcome (PA) (Weiss, Maantay, & Fahs, 2010). For example, someone
who engages in no walking in a neighborhood or POS may describe the
neighborhood or POSs characteristics as in poor condition in an exaggerated
way.
Furthermore, other measures of spatial configuration beyond integration
and control are available to researchers and could form the basis of future
analyses using space syntax principles and methods. For example, the location of POSs could be assessed based on the step depth distance from a
participants address. Step depth calculates the number of turns that it takes
to see from one location to another location on the plan and represents how
visually connected or isolated individuals are from one another (Wineman,
Kabo, & Davis, 2009, p. 432). A measure such as this would be interesting to
incorporate, especially when the POS itself is considered a destination.
Finally, although street configuration and POS proximity data were gathered
objectively, participants subjective perceptions were used to measure POS
attractiveness and other neighborhood attributes (e.g., safety, aesthetics) and

726

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

our measure of attractiveness could be expanded beyond a single item in

future research.

Conclusion
The current study adds to the limited, but rapidly expanding, body of
research in urban design and public health examining associations between
POSs and walking. In addition to factors related to POSs, our findings
emphasize the role of perceptual qualities of the surrounding built environments that encompass POSs. Moreover, by considering the relationship
between space syntax measures such as local integration and control and
walking to and within POS, this study sheds light on the ways different street
configurations can affect residents context-based walking. Future research
should build on the present findings to continue to examine how diverse
contextual properties of parks and neighborhoods can positively influence
PA and health.
Author's Notes
This research was based on a part of the first authors PhD thesis at the Melbourne
School of Design, University of Melbourne.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology
for providing the Open Space 2002 dataset as its owner. In addition, they would like
to express their appreciation of the Victorian Department of Sustainability and
Environment for supplying GIS datasets under license to University of Melbourne.
The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments of the editor and two knowledgeable reviewers.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Adams, M. A., Ryan, S., Kerr, J., Sallis, J. F., Patrick, K., Frank, L. D., & Norman, G.
J. (2009). Validation of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (news)

Koohsari et al.

727

items using geographic information systems. Journal of Physical Activity and

Health, 6, S113-S123.
Alfonzo, M., Boarnet, M. G., Day, K., McMillan, T., & Anderson, C. L. (2008). The
relationship of neighbourhood built environment features and adult parents walking. Journal of Urban Design, 13, 29-51.
Apparicio, P., Abdelmajid, M., Riva, M., & Shearmur, R. (2008). Comparing alternative approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health
services: Distance types and aggregation-error issues. International Journal of
Health Geographics, 7, 1-14.
Arvidsson, D., Kawakami, N., Ohlsson, H., & Sundquist, K. (2012). Physical activity
and concordance between objective and perceived walkability. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 44, 280-287.
Aspinall, P. A., Ward Thompson, C., Alves, S., Sugiyama, T., Brice, R., & Vickers, A.
(2010). Preference and relative importance for environmental attributes of neighbourhood open space in older people. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design, 37, 1022-1039.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Census of population and housing: Socioeconomic indexes for areas (seifa), 2006, Australia (Catalogue no. 2033.0.55.001).
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology. (2003). Ospace metadata: Australian
Research Centre for Urban Ecology. Melbourne: Author.
Badland, H. M., Schofield, G. M., & Garrett, N. (2008). Travel behavior and objectively measured urban design variables: Associations for adults traveling to work.
Health & Place, 14, 85-95.
Bafna, S. (2003). Space syntax. Environment and Behavior, 35, 17-29.
Ball, K., Jeffery, R. W., Crawford, D. A., Roberts, R. J., Salmon, J., & Timperio, A. F.
(2008). Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity
environments. Preventive Medicine, 47, 294-298.
Baran, P. K., Rodrguez, D. A., & Khattak, A. J. (2008). Space syntax and walking in
a new urbanist and suburban neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 13, 5-28.
Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks
to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 28, 159-168.
Berrigan, D., Pickle, L., & Dill, J. (2010). Associations between street connectivity
and active transportation. International Journal of Health Geographics, 9, 1-18.
Boehmer, T. K., Hoehner, C. M., Wyrwich, K. W., Brennan Ramirez, L. K., & Brownson, R. C. (2006). Correspondence between perceived and observed measures of
neighborhood environmental supports for physical activity. Journal of Physical
Activity & Health, 3, 22-36.

728

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

Boone-Heinonen, J., Popkin, B. M., Song, Y., & Gordon-Larsen, P. (2010). What
neighborhood area captures built environment features related to adolescent physical activity? Health & Place, 16, 1280-1286.
Brownson, R. C., Chang, J. J., Eyler, A. A., Ainsworth, B. E., Kirtland, K. A., Saelens,
B. E., & Sallis, J. F. (2004). Measuring the environment for friendliness toward
physical activity: A comparison of the reliability of 3 questionnaires. American
Journal of Public Health, 94, 473-483.
Brownson, R. C., Hoehner, C. M., Day, K., Forsyth, A., & Sallis, J. F. (2009). Measuring the built environment for physical activity: State of the science. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36, S99-S123.e112.
Burton, N. W., & Turrell, G. (2000). Occupation, hours worked, and leisure-time
physical activity. Preventive Medicine, 31, 673-681.
Cao, X., Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. (2006). The influences of the built environment
and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX.
Transportation, 33, 1-20.
Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2009). Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: A focus on empirical findings. Transport
Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 29, 359-395.
Carnegie, M. A., Bauman, A., Marshall, A. L., Mohsin, M., Westley-Wise, V., &
Booth, M. L. (2002). Perceptions of the physical environment, stage of change for
physical activity, and walking among Australian adults. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 73, 146-155.
Cerin, E., Frank, L. D., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., Conway, T. L., Chapman, J. E.,
& Glanz, K. (2011). From neighborhood design and food options to residents
weight status. Appetite, 56, 693-703.
Cerin, E., Leslie, E., Owen, N., & Bauman, A. (2008). An Australian version of the
neighborhood environment walkability scale: Validity evidence. Measurement in
Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12, 31-51.
Cerin, E., Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2006). Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale: Validity and development of a short form. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 38, 1682-1691.
Chin, G. K. W., Van Niel, K. P., Giles-Corti, B., & Knuiman, M. (2008). Accessibility
and connectivity in physical activity studies: The impact of missing pedestrian
data. Preventive Medicine, 46, 41-45.
Cleland, V. J., Timperio, A., & Crawford, D. (2008). Are perceptions of the physical
and social environment associated with mothers walking for leisure and for transport? A longitudinal study. Preventive Medicine, 47, 188-193.
Cohen, D. A., McKenzie, T. L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., & Lurie,
N. (2007). Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of
Public Health, 97, 509-514.

Koohsari et al.

729

Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., & Green, E. (2008). Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious
groups. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 103-114.
Craig, C. L., Marshall, A. L., Sjstrm, M., Bauman, A. E., Booth, M. L., Ainsworth,
B. E., . . . Oja, P. (2003). International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country
reliability and validity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35, 1381-1395.
Crespo, C. J., Ainsworth, B. E., Keteyian, S. J., Heath, G., W, & Smit, E. (1999). Prevalence of physical inactivity and its relation to social class in us adults: Results
from the third national health and nutrition examination survey. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 31, 1821-1827.
Cutt, H., Knuiman, M., & Giles-Corti, B. (2008). Does getting a dog increase recreational walking? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical
Activity, 5, 1-10.
Department of Sustainability and Environment. (2009). Vicmap property, vicmap
transport: Spatial Information Infrastructure. Victoria, Australia: Author.
Dill, J. (2004). Measuring network connectivity for bicycling and walking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Duncan, M. J., Spence, J. C., & Mummery, W. K. (2005). Perceived environment and
physical activity: A meta-analysis of selected environmental characteristics. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2, 1-9.
Ellaway, A., Macintyre, S., & Bonnefoy, X. (2005). Graffiti, greenery, and obesity in
adults: Secondary analysis of European cross sectional survey. British Medical
Journal, 331, 611-612.
Frank, L., Kerr, J., Chapman, J., & Sallis, J. (2007). Urban form relationships with
walk trip frequency and distance among youth. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21, 305-311.
Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Powell, K. E., & Chapman, J. E. (2007). Stepping
towards causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences
explain physical activity, driving, and obesity? Social Science & Medicine, 65,
1898-1914.
Frank, L. D., Schmid, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Chapman, J., & Saelens, B. E. (2005). Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form:
Findings from smartraq. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 117-125.
Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K.,
. . . Donovan, R. J. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to,
attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 28, 169-176.
Giles-Corti, B., Timperio, A., Bull, F., & Pikora, T. (2005). Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: Increased specificity for ecological models.
Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 33, 175-181.

730

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

Giles-Corti, B., Timperio, A., Cutt, H., Pikora, T. J., Bull, F. C. L., Knuiman, M.,
. . . Shilton, T. (2006). Development of a reliable measure of walking within and
outside the local neighborhood: RESIDEs neighborhood physical activity questionnaire. Preventive Medicine, 42, 455-459.
Gmez, L. F., Parra, D. C., Buchner, D., Brownson, R. C., Sarmiento, O. L., Pinzn,
J. D., . . . Lobelo, F. (2010). Built environment attributes and walking patterns
among the elderly population in Bogot. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38, 592-599.
Handy, S., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P. (2008). Neighborhood design and childrens
outdoor play: Evidence from northern California. Children, Youth and Environments, 18, 160-179.
Harrison, R. A., Gemmell, I., & Heller, R. F. (2007). The population effect of crime
and neighbourhood on physical activity: An analysis of 15461 adults. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 34-39.
Hillier, B. (2004). Can streets be made safe? Urban Design International, 9, 31-45.
Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, B., Hanson, J., & Graham, H. (1987). Ideas are in things: An application of the
space syntax method to discovering house genotypes. Environment and Planning
B: Planning and Design, 14, 363-385.
Hillsdon, M., Panter, J., Foster, C., & Jones, A. (2006). The relationship between
access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public
Health, 120, 1127-1132.
Hino, A. A. F., Reis, R. S., Parra, D. C., Brownson, R. C., & Fermino, R. C. (2010).
Using observational methods to evaluate public open spaces and physical activity
in Brazil. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7, S146-S154.
Hoehner, C. M., Brennan Ramirez, L. K., Elliott, M. B., Handy, S. L., & Brownson,
R. C. (2005). Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 105-116.
Hull, E. E., Rofey, D. L., Robertson, R. J., Nagle, E. F., Otto, A. D., & Aaron, D. J.
(2010). Influence of marriage and parenthood on physical activity: A 2-year prospective analysis. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7, 577-583.
Humpel, N., Owen, N., Iverson, D., Leslie, E., & Bauman, A. (2004). Perceived
environment attributes, residential location, and walking for particular purposes.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 26, 119-125.
Inoue, S., Murase, N., Shimomitsu, T., Ohya, Y., Odagiri, Y., Takamiya, T., . . . Sallis, J. F. (2009). Association of physical activity and neighborhood environment
among Japanese adults. Preventive Medicine, 48, 321-325.

Koohsari et al.

731

Inoue, S., Ohya, Y., Odagiri, Y., Takamiya, T., Ishii, K., Kitabayashi, M., . . . Shimomitsu, T. (2010). Association between perceived neighborhood environment and
walking among adults in 4 cities in Japan. Journal of Epidemiology, 20, 277-286.
Jacobsen, P. L., Racioppi, F., & Rutter, H. (2009). Who owns the roads? How motorised
traffic discourages walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention, 15, 369-373.
Janssen, I., Boyce, W. F., Simpson, K., & Pickett, W. (2006). Influence of individualand area-level measures of socioeconomic status on obesity, unhealthy eating,
and physical inactivity in Canadian adolescents. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 83, 139-145.
Jiang, B., Claramunt, C., & Klarqvist, B. (2000). An integration of space syntax into
GIS for modelling urban spaces. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2, 161-171.
Jilcott, S. B., Evenson, K. R., Laraia, B. A., & Ammerman, A. S. (2007). Association between physical activity and proximity to physical activity resources among
low-income, midlife women. Preventing Chronic Disease, 4, 1-16.
Kaczynski, A. T. (2010). Neighborhood walkability perceptions: Associations with
amount of neighborhood-based physical activity by intensity and purpose. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7, 3-10.
Kaczynski, A. T., & Henderson, K. A. (2008). Parks and recreation settings and active
living: A review of associations with physical activity function and intensity.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 5, 619-632.
Kaczynski, A. T., & Mowen, A. J. (2011). Does self-selection influence the relationship between park availability and physical activity? Preventive Medicine, 52,
23-25.
Kaczynski, A. T., Potwarka, L. R., & Saelens, B. E. (2008). Association of park size,
distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. American
Journal of Public Health, 98, 1451-1456.
Kaczynski, A. T., Potwarka, L. R., Smale, B. J. A., & Havitz, M. E. (2009). Association of parkland proximity with neighborhood and park-based physical activity:
Variations by gender and age. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31,
174-191.
Kavanagh, A. M., Goller, J. L., King, T., Jolley, D., Crawford, D., & Turrell, G.
(2005). Urban area disadvantage and physical activity: A multilevel study in Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 934-940.
Kim, Y. O., & Penn, A. (2004). Linking the spatial syntax of cognitive maps to the
spatial syntax of the environment. Environment and Behavior, 36, 483-504.
Klarqvist, B. (1993). A space syntax glossary. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning, 2, 11-12.
Kostakos, V. (2010). Space syntax and pervasive systems. In B. Jiang (Ed.), Geospatial analysis and modelling of urban structure and dynamics (pp. 31-52). New
York, NY: Springer.

732

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

Lackey, K., & Kaczynski, A. (2009). Correspondence of perceived vs. objective proximity to parks and their relationship to park-based physical activity. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, 1-9.
Leck, E. (2006). The impact of urban form on travel behavior: A meta-analysis.
Berkeley Planning Journal, 19, 37-58.
Lee, C. (2004). Activity-friendly communities: Correlates of transportation or recreation walking, and correlates of physical activity for different sub-populations.
Washington, DC: Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington.
Lee, C., & Moudon, A. V. (2006). Correlates of walking for transportation or recreation purposes. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 6, S77-S98.
Lee, C., & Moudon, A. V. (2008). Neighbourhood design and physical activity. Building Research & Information, 36, 395-411.
Leslie, E., Saelens, B., Frank, L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Coffee, N., & Hugo, G.
(2005). Residents perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different
neighbourhoods: A pilot study. Health & Place, 11, 227-236.
Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Brownson, R. C., & Bosworth, M. (2005). Multilevel modelling
of built environment characteristics related to neighbourhood walking activity in
older adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 558-564.
Lima, J. J. (2001). Socio-spatial segregation and urban form: Belm at the end of the
1990s. Geoforum, 32, 493-507.
Lin, L., & Moudon, A. V. (2010). Objective versus subjective measures of the built
environment, which are most effective in capturing associations with walking?
Health & Place, 16, 339-348.
Litman, T. A. (2011). Land use impacts on transport: How land use factors affect
travel behavior: Victoria Transport Institute. Retrieved from http://www.vtpi.org/
landtravel.pdf
Lovasi, G., Moudon, A., Pearson, A., Hurvitz, P., Larson, E., Siscovick, D., . . . Psaty,
B. M. (2008). Using built environment characteristics to predict walking for exercise. International Journal of Health Geographics, 7, 1-13.
Macintyre, S., Macdonald, L., & Ellaway, A. (2008). Lack of agreement between
measured and self-reported distance from public green parks in Glasgow, Scotland. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5, 1-8.
Marshall, S. (2005). Streets & patterns. London, England: Spon Press.
McConville, M. E., Rodrguez, D. A., Clifton, K., Cho, G., & Fleischhacker, S. (2011).
Disaggregate land uses and walking. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
40, 25-32.
McCormack, G. R., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., Du Toit, L., & Owen, N. (2008). Objective
versus perceived walking distances to destinations. Environment and Behavior,
40, 401-425.

Koohsari et al.

733

McGinn, A., Evenson, K., Herring, A., Huston, S., & Rodriguez, D. (2007). Exploring
associations between physical activity and perceived and objective measures of
the built environment. Journal of Urban Health, 84, 162-184.
Mecredy, G., Pickett, W., & Janssen, I. (2011). Street connectivity is negatively associated with physical activity in Canadian youth. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, 3333-3350.
Mokhtarian, P. L., & Cao, X. (2008). Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies. Transportation Research Part
B: Methodological, 42, 204-228.
Moody, J. S., Prochaska, J. J., Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Brown, M., & Conway,
T. L. (2004). Viability of parks and recreation centers as sites for youth physical
activity promotion. Health Promotion Practice, 5, 438-443.
Moudon, A. V., Lee, C., Cheadle, A. D., Garvin, C., Johnson, D., Schmid, T. L., . . .
Lin, L. (2006). Operational definition of walkable neighborhood: Theoretical and
empirical insights. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, S99-S117.
Nicholls, S. (2001). Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: A case
study using GIS. Managing Leisure, 6, 201-219.
Oakes, J. M., Forsyth, A., & Schmitz, K. (2007). The effects of neighborhood density
and street connectivity on walking behavior: The twin cities walking study. Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations, 4, 16.
Owen, N., Humpel, N., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., & Sallis, J. (2004). Understanding
environmental influences on walking: Review and research agenda. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, 67-76.
Ozbil, A., Peponis, J., & Stone, B. (2011). Understanding the link between street connectivity, land use and pedestrian flows. Urban Design International, 16, 125141.
Parra, D. C., Hoehner, C. M., Hallal, P. C., Ribeiro, I. C., Reis, R., Brownson, R. C.,
. . . Simoes, E. J. (2011). Perceived environmental correlates of physical activity
for leisure and transportation in Curitiba, Brazil. Preventive Medicine, 52, 234238.
Pearce, J., & Maddison, R. (2011). Do enhancements to the urban built environment
improve physical activity levels among socially disadvantaged populations?
International Journal for Equity in Health, 10, 28. Retrieved from http://www
.equityhealthj.com/content/10/1/28
Penn, A. (2003). Space syntax and spatial cognition. Environment and Behavior, 35,
30-65.
Penn, A., Hillier, B., Banister, D., & Xu, J. (1998). Configurational modeling of urban
movement networks. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25,
59-84.

734

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

Peponis, J., & Wineman, J. (2002). Spatial structure of environment and behavior. In
R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology
(pp. 271-291). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Ratti, C. (2004). Urban texture and space syntax: Some inconsistencies. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 487-499.
Ries, A. V., Voorhees, C. C., Roche, K. M., Gittelsohn, J., Yan, A. F., & Astone, N. M.
(2009). A quantitative examination of park characteristics related to park use and
physical activity among urban youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, S64-S70.
Roemmich, J. N., Epstein, L. H., Raja, S., Yin, L., Robinson, J., & Winiewicz, D.
(2006). Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical
activity of young children. Preventive Medicine, 43, 437-441.
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2008). Neighborhood socioeconomic status and health:
Context or composition? City & Community, 7, 163-179.
Roux, A. V. D., Evenson, K. R., McGinn, A. P., Brown, D. G., Moore, L., Brines, S., &
Jacobs, D. R. Jr. (2007). Availability of recreational resources and physical activity in adults. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 493-499.
Rundle, A., Field, S., Park, Y., Freeman, L., Weiss, C. C., & Neckerman, K. (2008).
Personal and neighborhood socioeconomic status and indices of neighborhood
walk-ability predict body mass index in New York City. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 1951-1958.
Saelens, B. E., & Handy, S. (2008). Built environment correlates of walking: A review.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40, S550-S566.
Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., Black, J. B., & Chen, D. (2003). Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. American Journal
of Public Health, 93, 1552-1558.
Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning
literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 80-91.
Sallis, J. F., & Kerr, J. (2006). Physical activity and the built environment. Research
Digest, 7, 1-7.
Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. B. (2008). Ecological models of health behavior.
In K. Glanz, B.K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health
education: Theory, research and practice (4th ed.) (pp. 465-485). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sallis, J. F., & Saelens, B. E. (2000). Assessment of physical activity by self-report:
Status, limitations, and future directions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 71, S1-S14.
Shigematsu, R., Sallis, J., Conway, T., Saelens, B., Frank, L., Cain, K., . . . King, A. C.
(2009). Age differences in the relation of perceived neighborhood environment to
walking. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41, 314-321.

Koohsari et al.

735

Shishehbor, M. H., Gordon-Larsen, P., Kiefe, C. I., & Litaker, D. (2008). Association of neighborhood socioeconomic status with physical fitness in healthy young
adults: The coronary artery risk development in young adults (cardia) study.
American Heart Journal, 155, 699-705.
Sjogren, K., Hansson, E., & Stjernberg, L. (2011). Parenthood and factors that influence outdoor recreational physical activity from a gender perspective. BMC Public Health, 11, 1-9.
Southworth, M., & Ben-Joseph, E. (2003). Streets and the shaping of towns and cities.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Spotts, D., & Stynes, D. (1984). Public awareness and knowledge of urban parks: A
case study. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2(4), 1-12.
Stanis, S. A. W., Schneider, I. E., & Pereira, M. A. (2010). Parks and health: Differences in constraints and negotiation strategies for park-based leisure time physical
activity by stage of change. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7, 273-284.
Sugiyama, T., Francis, J., Middleton, N. J., Owen, N., & Giles-Corti, B. (2010). Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of
neighborhood open spaces. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1752-1757.
Sugiyama, T., & Ward Thompson, C. (2008). Associations between characteristics of
neighbourhood open space and older peoples walking. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 7, 41-51.
Timperio, A., Giles-Corti, B., Crawford, D., Andrianopoulos, N., Ball, K., Salmon, J.,
. . . Hume, C. (2008). Features of public open spaces and physical activity among
children: Findings from the clan study. Preventive Medicine, 47, 514-518.
Transportation Research Board & Institute of Medicine. (2005). Does the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Troped, P. J., Saunders, R. P., Pate, R. R., Reininger, B., & Addy, C. L. (2003). Correlates of recreational and transportation physical activity among adults in a new
England community. Preventive Medicine, 37, 304-310.
Troped, P. J., Wilson, J. S., Matthews, C. E., Cromley, E. K., & Melly, S. J. (2010).
The built environment and location-based physical activity. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 38, 429-438.
Vaughan, L. (2007). The spatial syntax of urban segregation. Progress in Planning,
67, 205-294.
Veitch, J., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2010). Individual, social and physical environmental correlates of children's active free-play: A cross-sectional study. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 1-10.
Veitch, J., Timperio, A., Crawford, D., Abbott, G., Giles-Corti, B., & Salmon, J. (2011).
Is the neighbourhood environment associated with sedentary behaviour outside of
school hours among children? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 41, 333-341.

736

Environment and Behavior 45(6)

Wallmann, B., Bucksch, J., & Froboese, I. (2011). The association between physical
activity and perceived environment in German adults. European Journal of Public
Health. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr069
Weiss, R. L., Maantay, J. A., & Fahs, M. (2010). Promoting active urban aging: A
measurement approach to neighborhood walkability for older adults. Cities and
the Environment, 3, 1-17.
Wilson, L. A., Giles-Corti, B., Burton, N. W., Giskes, K., Haynes, M., & Turrell,
G. (2011). The association between objectively measured neighborhood features
and walking in middle-aged adults. American Journal of Health Promotion, 25,
e12-e21.
Wineman, J. D., Kabo, F. W., & Davis, G. F. (2009). Spatial and social networks in
organizational innovation. Environment and Behavior, 41, 427-442.
Witten, K., Exeter, D., & Field, A. (2003). The quality of urban environments: Mapping variation in access to community resources. Urban Studies, 40, 161-177.
Witten, K., Hiscock, R., Pearce, J., & Blakely, T. (2008). Neighbourhood access to
open spaces and the physical activity of residents: A national study. Preventive
Medicine, 47, 299-303.
Yen, I. H., & Kaplan, G. A. (1998). Poverty area residence and changes in physical
activity level: Evidence from the alameda county study. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1709-1712.

Author Biographies
Mohammad Javad Koohsari is a PhD candidate in urban design at the Melbourne
School of Design, University of Melbourne. His research interests focus on the influence of urban design on health outcomes, with a specific emphasis on relationships
between urban form, walking, and sense of community.
Justyna Anna Karakiewicz, BArch (Hon), AA Dip PhD MSAI RIBA FRSA, is an
associate professor in urban design and coordinator of master of urban design at The
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne. Her
research interests include high-density development and parametric urbanism. She
has published more than 50 papers, books, and book chapters.
Andrew T. Kaczynski is an assistant professor in the Department of Health
Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of
South Carolina. His research focuses on the role of the built environment and parks
in facilitating physical activity and health among children and adults.