TITLE: Analysis of Built Environment influences on Walking Trips and Distance Walked in a Mid-sized Canadian City Submission Date:

July 31, 2012 Word Count: 4,160 Number of Figures, Tables or Photographs: 6 AUTHORS Josh van Loon, Timothy Shah, Pat Fisher, Mary Thompson, Leia Minaker, Kim Raine, Lawrence Frank Josh van Loon, Postdoctoral Fellow (Corresponding Author) School of Population and Public Health, UBC 2206 East Mall, Rm. 372 Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z3 T: 778-316-3062 Fax: 604.822.4994 josh.vanloon@ubc.ca Timothy Shah, Masters Student School of Community and Regional Planning #433-6333 Memorial Road Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2 timothy.shah@gmail.com Pat Fisher, Public Health Planner Region of Waterloo Public Health 99 Regina St. S., P.O. Box 1633 Waterloo, ON Canada N2J 4V3 T:519-883-2004 x5698 pafisher@regionofwaterloo.ca Mary E. Thompson, Professor Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science University of Waterloo 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 T: 519-888-4567 x 35543 Fax: 519-746-1875 methomps@uwaterloo.ca Leia Minaker School of Public Health University of Alberta c/o University of Waterloo Survey Research Centre

Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science University of Waterloo 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 T: 519-744-9438 Fax: 519-746-1875 lminaker@ualberta.ca Kim D. Raine Professor, CIHR/HSFC Applied Public Health Chair Centre for Health Promotion Studies School of Public Health University of Alberta 3-291 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy 11405 87 Ave. Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 1C9 T: 780-492-9415 kim.raine@ualberta.ca Lawrence D. Frank, Professor School of Population and Public Health University of British Columbia 2206 East Mall, Rm. 360B Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z3 T: 604-822-5387 Fax: 604.822.4994 ldfrank@exchange.ubc.ca

ABSTRACT: This study seeks to advance current methods to measure walkability by relating detailed nonmotorized infrastructure data with walking behavior in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Walking distances were estimated using an innovative approach that involved spatially referencing trip location data from a travel diary and calculating shortest distance along a pedestrian network that incorporates both street and off-street pedestrian path data. Results indicate that when controlling for individual and household socio-demographic characteristics, pedestrians walk approximately the same average daily distance, regardless of their home neighborhood walkability. By explicitly examining both walking trips and distances as outcomes, it was possible to consider trade-offs between number of trips and distance walked, by neighborhood walkability. However, individuals living in more walkable neighborhoods are both more likely to walk at least once and engage in more walking trips than those in less walkable neighborhoods. These findings support the notion that increased accessibility reduces trip distances by bringing origins and destinations closer together. The findings from this study can help to inform design standards as part of neighborhood definitions and distance thresholds to destinations to support walking.

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

INTRODUCTION This research was conducted as part of the NEWPATH (Neighbourhood Environments in Waterloo Region, Physical Activity, Transportation and Health) study, a pracademic effort led by researchers and practitioners at the Region of Waterloo. The purpose of the project is to evaluate how transportation investments and land use actions impact neighborhood food environments, diet and travel patterns, and how preferences for neighborhood type and travel patterns moderate these relationships. Built environment influences on walking, physical activity and health have been extensively studied in recent years yielding many important insights on how land use and transportation characteristics can shape travel, physical activity and health (1,2). Much of the research on walkability or neighborhood design relationships with travel and activity patterns has been devoid until recently of sidewalk data and other micro-scale features such as seating, lighting, bike facilities, crosswalk characteristics and more (3). This study contributes towards the improved operationalization of measures of walkability that includes data on pedestrian infrastructure. It extends these expanded measures of walkability in an assessment of walking behavior in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Studies incorporating objective built environment measures of walkability have generally relied on street network data for modeling pedestrian accessibility, effectively disregarding offstreet pedestrian paths as an element of the pedestrian circulation system (4). This analysis is unique in its use of a walkability index that incorporates off-street paths such as cul-de-sac connectors in its design to better capture pedestrian movement opportunities. This index, a modified version of the walkability index developed by Frank and colleagues (5), was used as the primary explanatory variable in models predicting walking behavior. This study examined both walking trips, and distance walked along the pedestrian network (consisting of the street network and off-street paths) as outcome measures. While numbers of walking trips is commonly used as a measure of walking behavior, distance walked has been studied to a lesser degree (6). By explicitly examining both frequency and distance, it was possible to assess whether increased accessibility reduces trip distances while encouraging walking trips, thus encouraging active transportation (7). . RESEARCH METHODS AND SAMPLE Data collection occurred from May 2009 to May 2010. Recruitment of participants from across the Region of Waterloo was stratified by three levels each of walkability and income into a nine cell matrix with an effort to achieve representativeness across household size compared with 2006 census totals. Telephone listings with postal code information were used for recruitment and matched a-priori to a regional walkability surface (described below). The sampling frame resulted in oversampling of respondents in neighborhoods with low and high levels of walkability in order to ensure adequate variation across walkability to test relationships between walkability and travel patterns. Random sampling would not likely yield sufficient variation to detect these relationships, without a substantially increased overall sample size (8). Stratification across income allowed these relationships to be evaluated for high, medium, and lower income households. Every member of participating households over age 11 completed a two-day paper diary. The address of each location visited during a two day survey period was recorded with mode,

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank 47 48 49 50 51 52

vehicle occupancy, purpose, arrival time, and activity at destination. Households were recruited in day-pairs across all days of the week. The total sample size achieved was 4,902 individuals, but for the purposes of the present analysis, only adults aged 19 and over were selected, resulting in a final sample size of 4,840 individuals. Sample characteristics are highlighted in Table 1. TABLE 1 Sample Characteristics Variable Household Income ($) Under 35,000 35-000-85,000 Over 85,000 Median Income Gender Male Female Age (years) 65+ 19-24 25-44 45-64 Median Age Household size 1 2 3+ Average Household Car Ownership 0 1 2 3+ Average n % Regional total (2006 Census) %

662 1,630 1,970

15.5 38.2 46.2 $74,700

1,962 2,300 548 272 1,500 1,690 47

46.0 54.0 14.1 7.8 36.9 41.2

49.2 50.7 17.5 9.7 39.6 33.2 36.4

13.3 34.5 52.2 2.2 5.8 28.1 50.2 15.9 1.9

2.6

1.6*

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

*This number is derived from the Region of Waterloo Transportation Master Plan 2006

The Region of Waterloo has a population of 477,160 (9), making it the fourth largest urban area in the Province of Ontario and a mid-sized city region within Canada. The sample for this study consists of a diverse demographic group in terms of age, income, household size and car ownership that is generally reflective of the regional population. Notable differences include a relatively high proportion of 45-64 year olds, and an income distribution that likely underrepresents lower income households (although directly comparable census household is not available).

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Measures Demographic data were self-reported as part of the initial recruitment, using the categorization presented in Table 1. Three major travel outcome variables were derived from the two day travel diary. These were whether or not an individual walks over the course the two day period, and for those who walked: number of walking trips, and walking distance. Walking distance was estimated by geocoding addresses for individual trip ends as specified in the travel survey and calculating the shortest network distance between the points. This process took advantage of all available network data which included not only the street network (excluding expressways, highways and ramps), but a variety of off street pedestrian paths digitized by cartographers at the Region of Waterloo using aerial photography. Off-street pedestrian paths digitized consisted of cul-de-sac connectors, multi-use trails and paths through parks. Together with the street network, these comprise the pedestrian network used in all subsequent analyses. The primary explanatory variable, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based walkability measure, was calculated as the sum of z-scores of four component measures: intersection density, land use mix, net residential density and floor area ratio (a measure of commercial density) using a methodology similar to that developed previously by Frank and colleagues (10), but with several important refinements. Notably, all measures were based on the above described pedestrian network. This network was used to create street-based network buffers, which represent the area accessible to participants within one kilometer of their homes. Use of a pedestrian network represents a major improvement for measuring walkability which has to date relied almost exclusively on street network data. Higher values correspond to neighborhoods that are dense, well connected and containing a mix of land uses. Street-based (or line-based) network buffers also contribute towards better modeling pedestrian accessibility than other buffer types (11).

Statistical Methods Logistic regression was used for modeling the dichotomous outcome variable, whether or not an individual walks over the course of the two day period. For clarity of interpretation of results, walkability was categorized into tertiles for this model (low, medium and high walkability). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was performed to evaluate goodness of fit for this model. Because the other two outcome variables, number of walking trips, and walking distance, were collected as continuous variables, Ordinary Least Squares (multiple) regression was used to model relationships between these variables and walkability. All variables were approximately normally distributes and therefore were entered into models without requiring transformations. However, several outliers were noted for walking distance measures, with a maximum reported daily walking distance of 75 kilometers. A cutoff of 10 kilometers per day was selected as a threshold for screening outliers, because an examination of the frequency distribution of this measure indicated a distinct break between those walking under 10 kilometers per day and a small number of individuals walking greater distances. This reduced the final sample size by 60 individuals.

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

RESULTS Figure 1 is a map illustrating spatial variation in walkability in the study area, consisting of three local municipalities (Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge) within the Waterloo Region. As illustrated in this figure, the study area is characterized by three distinct walkable areas corresponding to the historic walkable cores of the constituent municipalities, situated within a matrix of lower walkability areas. As described elsewhere, the area has a generally dispersed spatial structure (12), characterized by low densities and little mixing of land uses. Notably, 58% of the region is developed to residential densities of 10 units per acre or less, while 97% is developed at 20 units per acre or less (based on densities calculated for all postal code centroids in the region). Consistent with the characteristic urban form of the region, the predominant mode of transportation for is by private automobile (either driver or passenger), at 88% of all trips, with relatively low proportions of walking (5.6%), transit (3.3%) and cycling (0.6%).

122 123 124 125

FIGURE 1 Walkability Map for the Study Area Descriptive statistics for the outcome variables are indicated in Table 2. As highlighted in this table, 27.9% of the sample reported at least one walking trip over a two day period.

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank 126 127 128 129 130

Within this subsample (n=1,064), individuals took on average 1.6 walking trips per day, with an average daily trip length of approximately 2.1 kilometers. TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics for Outcomes Variable Walked at Least Once Over a Two Day Period Walkers Only (n=1,064) Number of Walking Trips Average Daily Walking Distance (m) Percentage of full sample 27.9% Mean (Standard Deviation) 1.6 (1.1) 2,125 (2,041)

131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153

Multivariate analysis of Walking Trips The results of the logistic regression model predicting whether or not an individual walks at least once over a two day period are highlighted in Table 3. When controlling for individual sociodemographics and household characteristics, walkability was found to significantly predict the likelihood that an individual walked at least once over a two day period. Compared to an individual living in a low walkability neighbourhood, individuals living in moderate and high walkability neighborhoods were found to be 1.3 and 2.9 times more likely to walk, respectively. Separate models predicting whether or not an individual walks based on walkability components (commercial and residential density, land use mix and street connectivity), produced similar results, however significant differences were not noted between the first and second tertile of the individual components. For example, while individuals living in the highest tertile of density were 2.0 times as likely to walk compared to individuals living in the lowest tertile, those in the middle tertile were no more likely to walk than those living in the lowest tertile. Together, these results suggest a synergistic effect of walkability components in encouraging walking behavior. In addition to walkability, gender, age, household income, household size, and car ownership were all found to significantly predict whether or not an individual walks. Car ownership in particular stands out as a key predictor, with individuals living in car-free households more than 6 times more likely to walk than those living in a 2 car household (the median for the sample). TABLE 3 Model for Whether or Not an Individual Walks at Least Once Over a Two Day Period Variable n Walked at Least Once Over 2 Days OR (95% CI) 1,854 Referent 2,187 1.458 (1.248-1.704)***

Gender Male Female Age (years)

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank

6 1.362 (1.012-1.835)* 1.069 (0.893-1.280) Referent 0.778 (0.605-0.999)*

154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

19-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Household Income Below $35,000 $35,000 - $85,000 $85,000+ Household Size 1 2 3+ Household Car Ownership 0 1 2 3+ Walkability Low Medium High *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001

311 1,464 1,685 581

608 0.823 (0.636-1.063) 1,549 Referent 1,884 1.199 (1.002-1.434)* 539 1.437 (1.103-1.872)** 1,385 Referent 2,117 1.209 (0.999-1.461) 227 1,111 2,044 659 6.185 (4.230-9.044)*** 1.599 (1.313-1.948)*** Referent 0.660 (0.513-0.849)**

1,344 Referent 1,348 1.294 (1.053-1.591)* 1,349 2.872 (2.355-3.502)***

Table 4 summarizes the results of a model predicting number of walking trips per day, for walkers. Results are generally consistent with the logistic regression model, with higher home neighbourhood walkability translating into both an increased likelihood of walking and an increased number of walking trips for walkers. Walkability accounts for 3.9% of the variation in number of walking trips, above and beyond the 9.3% explained by individual and household characteristics. TABLE 4 Model for Number of Walking Trips Per Day Variable Constant Gender (Female) Age Income Below $35,000 Above $85,000 Household Size Household Car Ownership 0 1 B Sig 1.876 0.000 0.024 0.726 -0.010 0.000*** 0.017 0.869 -0.075 0.343 -0.018 0.545

0.541 0.000*** 0.065 0.457

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank

3+ Walkability

-0.079 0.502 0.064 0.000***

167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

R2 R2change Sig (Fchange) *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001

Model without walkability 0.093 0.000***

Full Model

0.132 0.039 0.000***

Finally, Table 5 presents the results of the model predicting average daily walking distance for individuals who walk. As indicated in this model, only age and household size significantly predict daily walking distance. These two variables are generally negatively correlated with all walking outcomes, with younger individuals and those living in smaller households more likely to walk at least once, to engage in more walking trips per day and to walk further than their counterparts. In contrast, while individuals living in higher walkability neighborhoods are more likely to walk and engage in a higher number of walking trips, they do not walk significantly further on a daily basis than their counterparts. TABLE 5 Model for Walking Distance Per Day Variable Constant Gender (Female) Age Income Below $35,000 Above $85,000 Household Size Household Car Ownership 0 1 3+ Walkability B Sig 3177.724 0.000 -4.584 -18.635 0.000*** 173.451 0.408 113.720 0.478 -117.486 0.050*

172.761 64.335 -285.629 15.457

0.521 0.715 0.279 0.427

Model Full Model without walkability

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank

181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221

R2 R2change Sig (Fchange) *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001

0.180 0.182 - 0.001 0.000*** 0.427

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Taken together, the findings suggest that pedestrians with similar individual and household socio-demographic characteristics living in neighborhoods of varying walkability walk approximately the same distance in a given day. For example, based on the model results presented in Table 5, a 45 year old walker living in a two person household is predicted walk approximately 2.1 kilometers daily, regardless of neighborhood walkability. However, a tradeoff between average trip length and distance walked is also evident. Thus, a 45 year old walker living in a household with two cars and in a moderately walkable neighborhood (defined in this instance as the third quartile of walkability) is predicted to walk on average 1.7 times per day at an average trip length of 1.2 kilometers. In contrast, an individual of the same age and household car ownership living in a low walkability neighborhood (defined as the first quartile of walkability), is predicted to walk 1.3 times per day at an average trip length of 1.6 kilometers. The results of this study confirm that higher levels of accessibility do in fact translate into shorter trips by demonstrating that walkers living in high walkability neighbourhoods engage in more frequent but shorter walk trips on average than their counterparts in lower walkability neighbourhoods. The net effect of the tradeoff between number of walking trips and distance walked is that for those that reported walking with similar individual and household characteristics walk approximately the same distance per day, regardless of walkability. However, the findings also demonstrate that higher walkability is associated with an increased likelihood of walking at all. These results build on the findings of many past studies that document consistent positive relationships between walking and measures of accessibility including density and land use mix (13). The findings of this study also contribute to a better understanding of the spatial scale for defining neighborhoods that influence behavior. Notably, the findings suggest that average trip length varies with walkability, suggesting that walkers living in less walkable neighborhoods typically walk further in an average trip than walkers living in higher walkability neighborhoods; likely because they have to in order to get anywhere. This points to the need to consider neighborhood definitions or distance thresholds that vary according to geographic context, when operationalizing built environment measures. In addition, average trip lengths in this paper were found to be substantially higher than the commonly used distance-to-transit threshold of 400 meters (14), highlighting the need to consider more spatially extensive neighborhood definitions in general. Additional research will help to further clarify the relationship between walkability and distance walked. This includes analyses distinguishing between trip types by purpose (e.g. utilitarian versus recreational), and research analyzing network data at the trips level in addition to average trip characteristics corresponding to individuals as in the present study. Distinguishing between trip purposes might for example reveal that the longer trips in less

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254

walkable, suburban settings are predominantly recreational, whereas shorter trips in more urban settings are predominantly utilitarian. This study is unique in part because of its geographic context, a mid-sized Canadian city. Previous research within Canada has focused on larger metropolitan areas such as Vancouver (15) and Montreal (16). However, given this unique geographic context, findings may not be readily generalizable to other jurisdictions. A recent US, national level analysis of 2009 National Household Travel Survey data by Yang and Diez Roux (17), offers several points of reference in this regard. In this study, the average daily walking distance was found to be 2.6 kilometers (1.64 miles), as compared to the 2.1 kilometers in the present study. Yang and Diez Roux also found that 16% of respondents had at least one daily trip, as compared to approximately 14% of respondents in the present study. Differences between the NHTS results and the present study may in part be due to different methodologies used for estimating distance walked. Whereas the present study relied upon network distances estimated using self-reported locations, the NHTS study used self-reported distances. The use of pedestrian network distances estimated based on locations reported in a travel diary entails some degree of error associated with spatial referencing of reported addresses, and errors in recall of trip destinations. However, this approach also avoids several limitations associated with other approaches, including discrepancies between perceived and objective distances (18), and use of a pedestrian network better captures pedestrian movement opportunities than would measures based solely on the street network. Results from this study can be used to help inform future research focusing on the inclusion of off-street pedestrian data in the definition of a walkable environment and in the definition of the area in which people can access from their home or other destinations on foot. Comparative analyses of distance walked across walkability levels reveals that those that have to walk in less walkable areas are walking quite far. This is not surprising and has some serious equity implications as it suggests an overall lack of access to nearby destinations. Those that live in less walkable areas who are walking larger distances are likely doing so because they have to and thus are exposed to increased pedestrian safety risks and overall exposure to environments designed more for vehicle movement. Finally, the focus on distance and walk trip generation begins to support more advanced analyses of dose - response relationships between neighborhood walkability and levels of physical activity and walking which could be used to evaluate health impacts of walkability.

255 256 257 258

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project was obtained from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and the Region of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. REFERENCES 1. Durand, C. P., M. Andalib, G. F. Dunton, J. Wolch, and M. A. Pentz. A systematic review of built environment factors related to physical activity and obesity risk: implications for smart growth urban planning. Obesity Reviews, Vol. 12, No. 5, May 2011, pp. e173e182.

259

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank

10

2. Ding, D., and K. Gebel. Built environment, physical activity, and obesity: What have we learned from reviewing the literature? Health & Place, Vol. 18, No. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 100105. 3. Saelens, B. E., and S. L. Handy. Built Environment Correlates of Walking. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Vol. 40, No. Supplement, Jul. 2008, pp. S550S566. 4. Chin, G. K. W., K. P. Van Niel, B. Giles-Corti, and M. Knuiman. Accessibility and connectivity in physical activity studies: The impact of missing pedestrian data. Preventive Medicine, Vol. 46, No. 1, Jan. 2008, pp. 4145. 5. Frank, L. D., T. L. Schmid, J. F. Sallis, J. Chapman, and B. E. Saelens. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 28, No. 2, Feb. 2005, pp. 117125. 6. Yang, Y., and A. V. Diez-Roux. Walking Distance by Trip Purpose and Population Subgroups. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 1, Jul. 2012, pp. 1119. 7. Krizek, K., J. Horning, and A. El-Geneid. Perceptions of Accessibility to Neighborhood Retail and Other Public Services. In K. Geurs, K. Krizek & A. Reggiani (Eds.), For Accessibility and Transport Planning: Challenges for Europe and North America. Edward Elgar, London, UK, 2012. 8. Frank L.D., J.F. Sallis, B.E. Saelens, L. Leary, K. Cain, T.L. Conwayl. The development of a walkability index: application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. British Journal of Sports Medicine. Vol. 44, No. 13. Apr. 2009, pp. 92433. 9. Statistics Canada. Focus on Geography Series, 2011 Census Census metropolitan area of Kitchener - Cambridge - Waterloo, Ontario. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=541 . Accessed July 12, 2012. 10. Frank, L. D., T. L. Schmid, J. F. Sallis, J. Chapman, and B. E. Saelens. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 28, No. 2, Feb. 2005, pp. 117125. 11 Oliver, L. N., N. Schuurman, and A. W. Hall. Comparing circular and network buffers to examine the influence of land use on walking for leisure and errands. International Journal of Health Geographics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2007, pp. 41. 12. Bunting, T.E., P. Filion. 1999.Dispersed City form in Canada: A Kitchener CMA Case Example. The Canadian Geographer, Vol. 43, No. 6, 1999, pp. 268-287. 13. Saelens, B. E., and S. L. Handy. Built Environment Correlates of Walking. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Vol. 40, No. Supplement, Jul. 2008, pp. S550S566. 14. Larsen, J., A. El-Geneidy, and F. Yasmin. Beyond the quarter mile: Re-examining travel distances by active transportation. Canadian Journal of Urban Research: Canadian Planning and Policy (supplement), Vol. 19, No. 1., 2010. pp. 70-88. 15. Marshall, J. D., M. Brauer, and L. D. Frank. Healthy Neighborhoods: Walkability and Air Pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 117, No. 11, Jul. 2009, pp. 17521759. 16 Manaugh, K. and A. El. Geneidy. Validating walkability indices: How do different households respond to the walkability of their neighbourhood? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2011, pp. 309-315. 17. Yang, Y., and A. V. Diez-Roux. Walking Distance by Trip Purpose and Population Subgroups. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 1, Jul. 2012, pp. 1119. 18. McCormack, G.R., E. Cerin, E. Leslie, L.D. Toit, N. Owen. Objective versus perceived walking distances to destinations : correspondence and predictive

van Loon, Shah, Fisher, Thompson, Minaker, Raine and Frank

11

validity. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2009, pp. 40125.