WHAT MAKES A COMMUNITY WALKABLE? MAPPING WALKABILITY INDICATORS IN CENTRAL INDIANA A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING BY JASON FLORA SCOTT TRUEX – ADVISOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA JULY 2009 Introduction
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
I N T R O D U C T I O N ................................................................................ 2
2.0
L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W ......................................................................... 3
2.1 Ur b an S pr aw l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 He alth I m p ac ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 . 3 Ec o n o m i c Impact s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 So ci al Im p ac t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5 Phy si c al A c ti v i ty an d t he Bu i lt E n vir onm ent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.1 Land Use Patterns and Density ................................................................ 10
2.5.2 Design Characteristics ............................................................................. 11
2.5.3 Transportation Systems ........................................................................... 18
2.6
3.0
4.0
L i mi t at ion s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................... 23
3.1
P urp ose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2
Pr oce ss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3
S ur ve y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
R E S U L T S A N D A N A L Y S I S .................................................................. 32
4.1
E x i s tin g Con di t ion s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1.1 Built Environment .................................................................................... 32
4.1.2 Health and Physical Activity .................................................................... 39
4.2
S ur ve y Re sult s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3
A n aly si s & D i sc us s ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.0
C O N C L U S I O N ................................................................................. 59
6.0
B I B L I O G R A P H Y .............................................................................. 61
A
H B D W A L K A B I L I T Y S U R V E Y .............................................................. 65
B
S U R V E Y R E S U L T S ........................................................................... 70
C
N E I G H B O R H O O D W A L K A B I L I T Y M A P S .................................................. 81
D
ACSM A M E R I C A N F I T N E S S I N D E X 2009 I N D I A N A P O L I S P R O F I L E ................ 88
What Makes a Community Walkable?
A
Chapter 1
1.0
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
It is no surprise that overweight and obesity are ongoing concerns in the United States. As
technology, lifestyle, and land use patterns have changed over the last 60 years, so too has the
physical activity of our population. Routine exercise is no longer tied to our employment or
home life, but is a choice we must make daily in order to maintain physical fitness. In 1960, 24
percent of the Americans were considered overweight (Frumkin, et al., 2004). By 1990, this figure
had grown to approximately 33 percent, and by 2008, overweight individuals in the United States
accounted for 36.4 percent of the population. These figures do not even include individuals
considered obese, which in 2008 accounted for another 26.6 percent of the population (BRFSS,
2008). All in all, 63 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese, pointing to a major
medical epidemic facing our country. Much of this problem can be accredited to where we
choose to live, how we choose to get to work, and how walkable our communities are. By
contributing to physical inactivity, and therefore to the health problems associated with
overweight and obesity, urban sprawl has a negative impact on public health (Frumkin, et al.,
2004).
Physical inactivity is also a life threatening concern which plays a significant role in chronic
diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. Sedentary lifestyles are responsible
for at least 300,000 deaths per year from the above mentioned chronic diseases (Frumkin, et al.,
2004). More specifically, 34 percent of coronary heart disease deaths can be attributed to physical
inactivity. The financial cost of overweight and obesity is significant and has been estimated at
approximately $117 billion annually (Active Living by Design, 2007). This trend is not only found
in adults but can be seen in young children as cases of childhood obesity have doubled over the
same period.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
In the past decade, researchers have begun to make the connection between the way our
communities are planned and America’s increasing weight problem. This research project will
look at significant literature within the field which documents this relationship. In addition, this
paper will examine existing health and built environment conditions found in Indianapolis and
measure these findings against results taken from a walkability survey distributed to a health
advocacy group based in central Indiana. The intent is that the research and analysis provided
within this report will increase health awareness, providing readers with a better understanding of
the relationship between the built environment and physical activity, and how principles of urban
planning can improve the state of public health.
The following summarizes some of the important findings and research claims discussed within
this paper:
−
Overweight and obesity are a growing concern in the United States.
−
Physical inactivity is a major contributing factor to overweight and obesity in the United
States.
−
Increasing physical activity can significantly improve health conditions and reduce one’s risk
of becoming overweight or obese.
−
Physical inactivity has a significant financial cost to government, public institutions, and
private enterprises.
−
Neighborhoods designed with residential areas in close proximity to active commercial
centers and recreational facilities can encourage residents to become more physically active.
−
Neighborhoods that have well maintained and abundant walking paths or sidewalks
encourage residents to become more physically active.
−
Overweight and obesity levels in Marion County, IN exceed the national average.
−
Indianapolis ranks poorly when compared to other large U.S. cities in terms of physical
activity.
−
Based on survey data, Indianapolis officials could improve physical activity with further
investment in parkland and key destinations located in neighborhoods.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
2
Chapter 2
2.0
Literature Review
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 URBAN SPRAWL
First, it is important to come to a consensus on the definition of urban sprawl. According to a
study published by the American Journal of Health Promotion titled the Relationship Between
Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity, urban sprawl is defined as “a
population widely dispersed in low-density residential development, rigid separation of homes,
shops, and workplaces; a lack of distinct, thriving activity centers; and a network of roads marked
by large block size and poor access from one place to another” (Ewing, et al., 2003). The trend
that is known as urban sprawl originated in the early 19th century with the advancement of
transportation systems including jitneys, trolley cars, and electric street cars, and was perpetuated
in the early 20th century with the affordability and mass production of automobiles. Coupled with
cost effective housing production and federally guaranteed home mortgages instituted in the
1940s, families were able to move away from the congestion of the inner city and begin their lives
in the commuter suburb (Frumkin, 2002). In addition to transportation advances and home
ownership, zoning practices based on the separation of incompatible land uses, have only
encouraged the continued escalation of urban sprawl.
Today, land density continues to decline as the population of American cities sprawl to outlying
suburbs. Between 1982 and 1997, urban land density in the United States dropped by more than
20%, requiring greater reliance on cars for traveling (Active Living Research, 2005). In addition
to commuting times, issues directly related to sprawl include an increasing dependency on the
automobile, air pollution, automobile accidents, inactive lifestyles, water quality, and many
others. These factors have all severely impacted the condition of public health in the United
States. Specifically, the level of physical activity American’s receive on a day to day basis.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
3
Chapter 2
Literature Review
As cities have expanded into outlying rural areas, land use has played a major role in increasing
the rate of sprawl and negatively impacting public health. The separation of residential,
commercial, industrial, and public land uses associated with Euclidean zoning practices has
encouraged the use of the automobile as the primary mode of transportation. As a result,
commuting distances have increased significantly for the last 40 years. From 1960 to 1990, the
percentage of workers with jobs outside their counties of residence tripled (Active Living by
Design, 2007). With this rise in automobile usage, walking has declined as the primary means of
travel. According to the 2006 National Transportation Statistics, 88 percent of Americans use
automobiles while only 2.7 percent use walking as their primary means of transportation to and
from work (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006)
This trend is also evident in the decline of school children walking to school. Between 1977 and
1995, trips made by walking declined by 40 percent for both children and adults, while driving
trips increased to almost 90 percent (Active Living by Design, 2007). School children are growing
more and more overweight as well, as walking trips by children have declined by 60 percent
between 1977 and 1995 (Moore, 2003). Less than 13 percent of school children walk to school
(Moore, 2003). This is due in part to the decline of safe walking routes for school children as well
as the policies and recommendations of states and local school corporations which require new
schools be built on large land blocks ranging from 10 to 60 acres (Beaumont, et al., 2002).
2.2 HEALTH IMPACTS
The connection between the benefits of increased physical activity and improved health is clear.
Increased physical activity protects against the negative impacts of heart disease, cancer, reduces
the likelihood of depression and reduces the occurrence of conditions such as osteoporosis,
diabetes, gall bladder disease, stroke, and a range of other common diseases (Frumkin, 2007). In
fact, studies have shown that leading an active lifestyle can prolong one’s life. The risk of
sedentary lifestyles has been found to be as much, and in some cases larger, than those associated
with hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, and even smoking (Frumkin, et al., 2004).
What Makes a Community Walkable?
4
Chapter 2
Literature Review
In addition to a risk factor for all of the above medical conditions, sedentary lifestyles generally
lead to conditions of overweight and obesity and all the associated medical risks thereof. While it
is understood that several factors contribute to weight gain, including diet and family medical
history, physical inactivity is an important variable contributing to weight gain and one which has
risen significantly over the past 50 years. According to the 1960 Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System (BRFSS) 24 percent of Americans were considered overweight (BMI ≥ 25
kg/me), while in 1990 this proportion had increased to 33 percent. Over the same period of time,
obese Americans (BMI ≥ 30 kg/me) nearly doubled (Frumkin, et al., 2004). By 2008, these figures
had risen to a national average of 36 percent overweight and 27 percent obese (BRFSS, 2008).
Similar to the national prevalence of overweight and obesity, 2007 BRFSS figures for Marion
County, IN and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area indicate a similar prevalence of overweight
and obese individuals. For the Indianapolis metropolitan area, 34.6 percent of the population was
considered overweight while 27.3 percent were considered obese (BRFSS, 2007). When compared
to other regional metropolitan areas, Indianapolis obesity rates were higher than Chicago (24.9
percent), Cincinnati (25.8 percent), and Louisville (26.2 percent) (BRFSS, 2007). Local health and
physical acivity data is discussed further in Chapter 4.
2.3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The increasing problems associated with overweight and obesity have placed a substantial
financial burden on the health care system in the United States. The direct and indirect medical
costs associated with obesity in the United States have been estimated at $117 billion annually
(Active Living by Design, 2007). Specifically, the average annual medical costs for persons1 who
are physically active are approximately $1,019 compared to $1,349 for those who are inactive
(Chenoweth, et al., 2008). These costs are not trivial and can place a substantial financial burden
on municipalities, small businesses and citizens around in the United States. In order to further
1
Persons 15 years or older and without physical limitation
What Makes a Community Walkable?
5
Chapter 2
Literature Review
demonstrate the economic impacts of physical inactivity, the following analysis illustrates the
enormous expense in terms of health care costs, workers compensation, and lost productivity to
Indianapolis and a hypothetical small business located in Indianapolis. The following analysis
goes further in demonstrating the investment communities and businesses can place in their
residents/employees by promoting alternative means of transportation, smart growth, and active
lifestyles.
Developed by Active Living Leadership, the Physical Inactivity Cost Calculator is a tool that
provides policy makers, local officials, and community leaders with an estimate of the financial
impact sedentary lifestyles can place on one’s community. The calculator utilizes a formula that
applies local variables such as median income; population over 18 and percent over 65; the
number of employees in the civilian labor force; and the percent of the state’s population found to
be physically inactive. The percent of Indiana’s population cited as inactive was 74 percent.
Table 2-1 demonstrates the costs associated with physical inactivity, as determined by the
calculator, for Indianapolis and a hypothetical small business located in Indianapolis (Chenoweth,
et al., 2008):
As shown below, the financial costs associated with physical inactivity to the City of Indianapolis
and small businesses are substantial. When compared to these costs, the implementation of
programs and facilities which promote active lifestyles are much more cost-effective and often
cheaper on a per capita basis then the cost associated with sedentary workers. For example, a
study published by the American Journal of Public Health calculated the average cost of
constructing and operating bicycle and pedestrian trails in the city of Lincoln, Nebraska.
Researchers found that on average, the annual cost per user was $252 while the annual costs to the
city associated with physical inactivity was $622 (Wang, et al., 2004). For small businesses, the
cost of physical inactivity may be even more detrimental as health care costs typically account for
a significant expense to employers. A study by the Wellness Council of America found that an
effective wellness program typically costs employers between $100 and $150 per employee, but
yields a return of between $300 and $450 per worker (Texas Department of State Health Services,
What Makes a Community Walkable?
6
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2005). The savings to small businesses can be even more significant when you account for
workers compensation and lost productivity.
Table 2-1: Economic Costs Associated with Physical Inactivity
Variables2
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
Median Household Income
$44,325
Population over 18
581,518
Percent over 65
Civilian Labor Force
Percent of Indiana Residents
Physically Inactive
10.8%
413,416
73.9%
Small Business
Costs of Physical Inactivity
Indianapolis
(100 employees)
Medical Care Costs
$130,006,578
$22,356
$2,454,339
$594
$1,051,667,500
$254,385
$1,184,128,417
$277,335
$2,036
$2,773
$59,206,429
$13,867
Workers Compensation Costs
Lost Productivity Costs
Total
per person
If 5% of residents/workers
became physically active (savings)
2.4 SOCIAL IMPACTS
The social impacts of physical inactivity are generally measured in terms of social capital, which
has been defined as “social networks and interactions that inspire trust and reciprocity among
citizens” (Leyden, 2003). In other words, individuals and neighborhoods with a high degree of
social capital are those that tend to volunteer in the community, be more politically involved in
their community, their neighbors, and socialize with friends and family on a regular basis. This
2
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Selected Economic and Demographic
Characteristics. Retrieved 9/25/2008.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en
What Makes a Community Walkable?
7
Chapter 2
Literature Review
is commonly known has having a strong “sense of community.” Evidence suggests that
individuals with a high degree of social capital are found to be more physically active and
therefore lead healthier lives (Leyden, 2003). Evidence has increasingly shown that
neighborhoods that promote physical activity (e.g. walkable, dense, mixed-used, etc.) are found to
have residents with high levels of social capital and thus an improved health status.
As with the relationship between the built environment and physical activity, the evidence linking
social capital and the built environment is cross-sectional and therefore cannot be considered to
be causal (Chau, 2007). However, studies have found that neighborhood design is associated with
improved social capital and in many cases linked to improved neighborhood crime rates, safety,
the proper functioning of government, and increased economic development (Putnam, 2000). A
study published in the September 2003 issue of the American Journal of Public Health examined
this relationship. The study considered whether pedestrian oriented, mixed-use neighborhoods
encouraged enhanced levels of social and community engagement. To measure this, household
surveys were issued to a random sample of residents who lived in traditional neighborhood
settings and those who lived in the suburban areas of Galway, Ireland. The study measured four
aspects of social capital by asking survey questions which measured how well residents knew their
neighbor, were politically involved, trusted or had faith in other people, and how engaged they
were socially. The study found that the more places respondents were able to walk to, the higher
the level of social capital. This relationship supports the notion that walkable, mixed-use
neighborhoods are better generators of social capital than modern suburbs. The data also
suggests that the way we design our communities affects social capital and therefore physical and
mental health (Leyden, 2003).
2.5 PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
AND THE
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
The social, economic, and health impacts of physical inactivity and sedentary lifestyles are
evident, but what are the factors of a neighborhood that encourage increased physical activity?
In recent years, studies have shown that several characteristics of traditional neighborhood
design, such as tree lined streets; compact, mixed use neighborhoods; or proximity to recreational
What Makes a Community Walkable?
8
Chapter 2
Literature Review
areas and alternative forms of transportation have been found to encourage walking more and
thereby increase physical activity. These characteristics and other neighborhood traits can be
classified into three broad categories: land use patterns, design characteristics, and transportation
systems (Frumkin, et al., 2004). The following section further discusses the research which has
established the relationship between the built environment and physical activity. The subsections
which follow further discuss how broad environmental factors such as land use, design
characteristics, and transportation systems influence physical activity.
The first study that examined the relationship between the built environment and physical
activity was commissioned by the CDC in 1999 and conducted by Lawrence Frank and Peter
Engelke (Ewing, et al., 2006). With this study and coinciding research, the correlation between
neighborhood design and physical inactivity was established. These studies found that
neighborhoods that are walkable increase levels of physical activity and thus, improve health.
Though it may be difficult to determine the most important features which promote physical
activity, research has identified the following design characteristics which improve walkability:
enhanced streetscape, benches, desirable architecture, trees, cleanliness, continued maintenance,
and other quality pedestrian facilities (Frumkin, et al., 2004).
While literature generally supports the relationship between physical activity and certain
environmental factors, research is still not clear on how environmental factors influence physical
activity performed for different purposes (e.g. leisure, transportation, occupation, etc.) as well as
how this relationship may differ across various population segments (King, 2006). A study
conducted in 2002 by Christine Hoehner, et al advanced the already established relationship
between the built environment and physical activity. This study, published in the American
Journal of Preventative Medicine, assessed perceptions and objectively measured environmental
factors and their association with transportation and recreational physical activity. A 2002
telephone survey conducted in St. Louis, MO and Savannah, GA measured the perceived
environment and physical activity behaviors of over 1,000 adults. At the same time the telephone
survey was conducted, environmental audits of each respondent’s neighborhood were competed
measuring characteristics including land use, transportation, recreational facilities, aesthetics and
What Makes a Community Walkable?
9
Chapter 2
Literature Review
the social environment. The study found that positive associations existed with perceived and
objectively measured factors including the number of nearby destinations, public transit,
perceived access to bike lanes and objective counts of other people observed actively enjoying the
neighborhood. Recreational activity was positively associated with perceived access to
recreational facilities, and objective measures of neighborhood attractiveness. The study
reiterated the notion that different environmental factors influence walking trips made for
different purposes (i.e. transportation vs. recreation) (Hoehner, et al., 2005).
2.5.1 LAND USE PATTERNS AND DENSITY
In 2003, a study published in the American Journal of Health Promotion and conducted by
researchers from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) first established the relationship between
urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and mobility. The study was conducted by controlling
for demographic and behavioral covariates of age, race, education, income level, etc. In order to
statistically test the relationship between sprawl and health, researches used the Smart Growth
America (SGA) Metropolitan Sprawl Index and county index as the independent variable. They
then examined the level of physical activity reported by study participants, recommended physical
activity, minutes walked per week, BMI, and obesity (BMI >30) based on BRFSS surveys. The
sample size consisted of 206,992 individuals over a three year period (1998-2000). The study
found residents living in sprawling counties were more likely to weigh more, have higher blood
pressure, and walk less. Barriers to physical activity noted in the study included several factors
including lack of sidewalks or walking paths, distance to places of interest, and a greater
dependence on the automobile as the sole mode of transportation (Morris, 2006)(Frumkin, et al.,
2004). While it is understood that many other factors contribute to overweight and obesity, the
barriers to physical activity mentioned in this study and demonstrated in sprawling development
can be addressed by employing principles of smart growth and sustainability. Communities and
neighborhoods that are “walkable” contain individuals who tend to walk more, which therefore
increases physical activity and decreases the risk of being overweight (Frumkin, et al., 2004).
What Makes a Community Walkable?
10
Chapter 2
Literature Review
An earlier study also established the relationship between land use and physical activity by
examining the benefits of large mixed-use suburban office developments. The study of 57
suburban office centers across the United States found that 59 percent of all floor space was
devoted to office use, 15 percent devoted to retail, and 10 percent to residential. The study found
that single-use offices resulted in more solo commuting trips made by employees, whereas, more
mixed-use office centers encouraged ridesharing, walking, and bicycling to work. In addition, the
study indicated that the inclusion of a mixture of uses within the development, especially
commercial retail, led to fewer trips made throughout the workday and reduced congestion
during peak hours, specifically at lunch hour. Therefore, the benefit of creating a balance between
the location of employment and housing is a reduction in traffic congestion, shorter vehicular and
pedestrian trips, and increased physical activity due to walking and bicycling (Cervero, 1988).
Encouraging this type of balanced development is the challenge that faces planners and local
governments across the county.
2.5.2 DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
Design characteristics such as landscaped boulevards, unique architecture, and compact, mixeduse development offer the widest range of environmental factors which influence physical
activity. However, these characteristics also include factors such as functionality, safety
perceptions, and the social interaction of a neighborhood. In reviewing urban planning and
transportation literature, Australian researchers classified design characteristics of the built
environment that contribute to physical activity into four categories: functional, safety, aesthetic,
and destination features (Pikora, et al., 2003). These features, as well as those discussed in notable
public health articles, will be used below to further support the relationship between
neighborhood design characteristics and physical activity.
F UNCTION
Functional design characteristics, which impact physical activity, refer to the specific physical
attributes of a street or path and may include the number of available sidewalks, connectivity,
continuity, street design, traffic volume, intersection design, and pedestrian crossing design
within a given neighborhood. Discussed in detail below, functional characteristics of a
What Makes a Community Walkable?
11
Chapter 2
Literature Review
neighborhood greatly influence physical activity, and as Pikora, et. al. discovered in Australia,
were of the most important factors in determining physical activity for walking and cycling
(Frumkin, et al., 2004).
The availability and connectivity of sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian crossings are significant
factors in encouraging walking and increased physical activity. A Canadian study published in
the American Journal of Preventative Medicine examined walking to work in twenty-seven urban
and suburban neighborhoods. The study found that suburban neighborhoods had the lowest
proportion of residents who walked to work. It also found that the prevalence of sidewalks in a
neighborhood was a predictor of whether residents did indeed walk to work. Other factors that
were predictors of walking to work included links to transit, variety of destinations, and aesthetics
(Frumkin, et al., 2004).
Connectivity plays an important role in neighborhood design and influencing physical activity. A
common measure in describing the built environment, connectivity refers to the directness or
number of alternative routes available in traveling from one place to another, often measured by
the number of intersections per square mile (USGBC, 2008). A study conducted by Susan Handy
looked at non-work trips in the San Francisco area and measured street network and accessibility
to activity centers. The study found that connectivity was an important factor in determining
walking trips and often obstacles such as long distances and major roadways deterred trips. The
study also concluded that land use mix and proximity can overpower the connectivity of the street
network, as it is more important for walkers to have access to nearby destinations and public
transit (Saelens, et al., 2008).
In most studies, connectivity is measured by the degree in which streets are connected and
categorized as either traditional (street grid) or conventional (suburban) neighborhoods. But, as
an Australian study points out, this assumes that pedestrians only walk on streets. To truly
measure connectivity, research must look at the connectivity of the pedestrian network alone.
The 2004 study, published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, found that while
pedestrian connectivity of traditional neighborhoods was slightly higher, connectivity measures
What Makes a Community Walkable?
12
Chapter 2
Literature Review
for conventional neighborhoods improved 120 percent with the addition of pedestrian networks.
The study concluded that adding pedestrian connections via parks, trails, and by further
connecting cul-de-sacs can greatly improve connectivity and improve neighborhood activity
(Chin, 2008).
S AFETY
Safety factors which impact physical activity are somewhat similar to the functional factors
discussed above. Street and sidewalk width, pedestrian crossings and signals, on-street parking,
and landscaped buffers are all design considerations which impact safety or at least one’s
perception of safety. Also included in safety factors are the actual and perceived crime rates of a
neighborhood. Similar to the environmental factors, there is a direct relationship between safety
and the level to which neighborhood residents are physically active. The following section
discusses these safety factors both in terms of street design and crime rates.
Street Design
Research indicates that street design characteristics such as scale, street width, traffic speed, and
pedestrian crossings influence actual and perceived pedestrian safety, both of which impact
physical activity. It is logical to conclude that the more safety considerations given to the design
of a roadway, the more safe pedestrians and bicyclist will feel (King, 2006). “Pedestrian islands”
(medians) give pedestrians room to stand in the middle of busy streets; ladder crosswalks are
more visually noticeable to motorists; narrow streets and on-street parking reduce traffic speed.
A 2006 study published by the American Journal of Health Promotion measured relationships
between the perceived environment and physical activity across different geographic and
demographic populations. Among other environmental factors discussed in this section, the
study concluded that a positive relationship existed between traffic safety issues and physical
activity. The study concluded; “participants who perceived greater general traffic and crimerelated safety levels of their neighborhoods were able to benefit more from their physical activity
interventions.” The study also found that, in certain locations, the prevalence of speeding cars
reduced reported levels of physical activity while crosswalks aided in efforts to become more
physically active (King, 2006).
What Makes a Community Walkable?
13
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Safety may play the most important role in influencing the physical activity of the senior
population as several studies have been conducted measuring environmental factors which
influence activity. Somewhat established is the importance of environmental factors such as
aesthetics or sidewalks in encouraging physical activity for seniors (Cunningham, et al., 2004).
But, as concluded in 2008 study published in The Journal of Aging and Physical Activity,
characteristics of the built environment likely to promote physical activity are secondary to an
environment in which safety and social cohesion are the primary concern (King, 2008).
Crime
The issue of crime, real or perceived, on one’s perception of safety is overwhelming and
significant research has been conducted on this subject alone. To determine how crime impacts
physical activity, one must determine how crime impacts one’s perception of safety. Without
going into the literature which seeks to explain this relationship, it is logical to conclude that
people will be more physically active in places where they are perceived to be safe (Frumkin, et al.,
2004). Isolated studies have shown that high neighborhood safety is associated with more
recreational walking (Foster, et al., 2008); crime is significantly associated with increased BMI
(Foster, et al., 2008); Whites who perceived their neighborhood as safe from crime are more likely
to walk (Foster, et al., 2008); and women who feel unsafe are less likely to achieve recommended
levels of physical activity (Foster, et al., 2008).
BRFSS data has found that when asked, “How safe from crime do you consider your
neighborhood to be?” in nearly all subgroups of respondents, physical activity increased with each
level of increased safety (Frumkin, et al., 2004). In looking at the relationship between the inner
city and suburban neighborhoods, a 2006 study published by the American Journal of Preventative
Medicine found that inner city children engaged in less physical activity than suburban children
and that inner city parents express a greater anxiety level concerning crime (Weir, et al., 2006).
This may help to explain increased overweight and obesity levels found in inner cities as parents
may be responsible for restricting the amount of exercise children receive.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
14
Chapter 2
Literature Review
It is important to note that not all research arrives at the same conclusion with respect to crime
and physical activity. In a review of literature on the topic, Foster and Giles-Corti found that
while some elements of the built environment such as street lighting and surveillance systems may
influence safety, inefficient evidence exists overall to conclude that perceived crime related to
safety influences physical activity (Foster, et al., 2008). This may be due in part to the differences
associated with walking for transportation and walking for recreation. In neighborhoods with
lower income levels, studies have found that while more fearful of crime, respondents tend to
walk more. This may also be explained by the fact that disadvantaged neighborhoods are
generally found in the inner-city with higher residential density and thus more suited to walking
as for transportation (Lee, 2007) (Foster, et al., 2008). However, as with other studies, Foster and
Giles-Corti’s literature review did conclude that perceived safety tends to affect the physical
activity of groups who are already known to have an elevated level of anxiety toward crime
(Foster, et al., 2008).
A ESTHETICS
Maybe the most logical environmental factor related to physical activity, at least for leisure
purposes, is the aesthetic quality of a neighborhood. This includes environmental factors such as
cleanliness, maintenance, and natural beauty, but may also include the prevalence of various
historic or cultural amenities, scenic views, and/or certain unique architectural qualities. Several
studies have shown that attractive, friendly neighborhoods are more enjoyable to walk in and thus
encourage physical activity. King found that; “In particular, ratings of neighborhood aesthetics
(e.g. foliage, attractive buildings and scenery, absence of litter) and rated satisfaction with the ease
and pleasantness of one’s neighborhood for walking were found to be a particularly useful
combination of correlates that differentiated physical activity success” (King, 2006). While other
studies have found similar positive relationships, this particular study further indicated that there
was a 30 percent greater likelihood that residents will meet the recommended 150 minutes per
week of moderate or vigorous exercise if resident’s were satisfied with the aesthetic, ease, and
pleasantness of their neighborhood for walking (King, 2006). Also supporting this relationship, a
2002 review of 19 journal articles assessing the “relationship between physical activity behavior
and perceived and objectively determined physical environment attributes,” Humpel found that
What Makes a Community Walkable?
15
Chapter 2
Literature Review
research supported the positive relationship between aesthetic attributes and physical activity.
This review also found that collective research supports accessibility and opportunities for activity
are strongly related to physical activity. Weather and safety had less significant correlations.
(Humpel, et al., 2002)
D ESTINATION
As with accessibility and function, safety, and aesthetics, studies have shown that in
neighborhoods where there is a concentrated mix of desirable destinations, residents are more
likely to walk and therefore meet recommended levels of physical activity. These desirable
locations include retail stores, schools, churches, community centers, parks, transit nodes, and
other commercial and civic establishments. A 2005 research summary provided by Active Living
Research, a program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, cited; “People who live in
neighborhoods with a mix of shops and businesses within easy walking distance have a 35 percent
lower risk of obesity” (Active Living Research, 2005). A more recent study published in 2008
found that, among other environmental factors; “Subgroups were more likely to walk if they lived
in neighborhoods with greater residential density, greater connectivity and greater land use mix.”
The study concluded that:
“For walking outcomes, neighborhood walkability characteristics produced the biggest
differences, especially when shops and services were also present. The highest priority would be
to target improvements within a range of densities. In lower density areas interventions could
include; creating walking trails, highlighting local physical activity resources such as parks or
recreation centers, and pedometer based interventions that encourage walking in safe
locations. High density lower income areas would benefit from increased presence of retail and
other commercial destinations.” (Frank, et al., 2008)
Physical activity for recreation is also associated with accessible destinations and density. In a
2003 Georgia study, a statewide survey discovered there was a direct relationship between having
a convenient place for recreation such as nearby parks, community centers, and trails to achieving
the recommended level of daily exercise. Georgia residents living within a ten minute walk from
a park had a 41.5 percent probability of obtaining the recommended level of physical activity,
What Makes a Community Walkable?
16
Chapter 2
Literature Review
while those not living close to a park had a 27.4 percent probability (Frumkin, et al., 2004). A
2005 study found that residential density was positively correlated with vigorous recreational
physical activity. These studies also challenge previous research which indicates that residential
density is not merely associated with moderate physical activity (i.e. walking), but also for
transportation purposes as well (Atkinson, et al., 2005).
Applying the principles of density and land use mix, the United States Green Building Council’s
(USGBC) program Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood
Development (LEED-ND) has developed a rating system which incorporates the many principles
of smart growth, urbanism, and green building design. The rating system “offers an independent
third party verification that a development's location and design meet accepted high levels of
environmentally responsible, sustainable development” (USGBC, 2008). Among the standards
for reaching LEED-ND certification, a development must contain a residential component which
accounts for 25 percent of the total size of the development. In addition, 50 percent of the
dwelling units must be located within a half-mile walk of at least four other destinations
(minimum one from each category). Table 2-2 below, taken from the LEED-ND standards, is an
example of diverse land uses, which if incorporated into neighborhoods should help promote
physical activity.
Table 2-2: List of Uses from the LEED-ND Draft Rating System
Retail Services Civic/Community Facilities Convenience store Bank Child care (licensed) Florist Coffee shop Civic/community center Hardware store Hair care Place of worship in a building Pharmacy Health club Police/fire station Supermarket Laundry/dry cleaner Post office Other retail Medical/dental office Public library Restaurant Public park Homeless shelter School Senior care Social services facility Adapted from Criterion Planners, INDEX neighborhood completeness indicator, 2005. Source: LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System: Public Comment Period Draft Rating System. Accessed 3/19/09. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148 What Makes a Community Walkable?
17
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.5.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Transportation systems characterize the third dimension of the built environment influencing
physical activity. These systems connect various land uses and “define the relative ease and
convenience of walking, bicycling, transit, and driving” (Frumkin, et al., 2004). They are often
mapped in terms of the physical infrastructure which carries various types of traffic. This
includes, but is not limited to sidewalks for walkers; streets for cars, buses and bicyclist; rail lines
for various mass transit systems; and trails for pedestrians, bicyclist, and rollerbladers (Frank, et
al., 2003). Important to this relationship is the specific design and location of the transportation
system. For example, the connectivity and continuity of sidewalks and trails to a range of land
uses is important to encouraging physical activity. The same can also be said regarding the
design and location of transit stations, bicycle lanes, or multi-use paths. Below is a brief review of
research which documents this relationship. The following deals only with the specific impact
bicycle and transit systems have on physical activity.
Different transportation systems influence how people travel, and thus, to what degree they are
physically active. A 1997 study attempted to assess the extent to which the number of bicycle
pathway miles (per 100,000 people) influenced the percentage of those who commuted by bicycle.
After controlling for days of rain per year, mean high temperature, percent of college students,
and terrain, the researchers found that only the number of bicycle miles, number of college
students, and days of rain were significantly correlated to the percent commuting by bicycle.
Based on these results, the researchers determined that the form of the bicycle network was as
important, if not more important, to commuting by bicycle than the actual number of bicycle
miles. In other words, the number of miles in a system is not as important as connecting various
residential areas to commercial and industrial uses. In most communities the bicycle network is
designed, constructed, and promoted as a form of recreation. What the authors of this study
conclude is that in order to increase commuting by bicycle the bicycle network must be designed
to connect people to the places they want to go.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
18
Chapter 2
Literature Review
In a 2008 commentary published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Yan Zheng
discussed the importance of public transportation in promoting physical activity. In her
discussion she cites a Swedish study which found that while public transportation reduces the
odds of overweight and obesity in men (unclear in women), walking or biking to work
significantly reduces the risk of overweight and obesity in both women and men (Lindstrom,
2008). In an Australian study, men who cycle to work are significantly less likely to be overweight
or obese (39.8 percent) compared with those who drive to work (60.8 percent) (Zheng, 2008). It
may seem logical to conclude that those who are physically active in their daily routine (e.g.
commuting to work) will be less likely to be overweight or obese. However, these studies are
important in documenting the real health benefits associated with transportation systems not
reliant on the automobile. While the health benefits to bicycling and public transportation are
clear, it is important that careful consideration be placed on how these transportation systems are
designed in order to fully encourage physical activity.
A 2009 article published in the Journal of the American Planning Association measured the effect a
new light rail station had on physical activity in a Salt Lake City neighborhood. The study queried
residents on their behaviors and attitudes toward transit oriented development and categorized
each respondent into one of three groups: nonriders, new riders, and continuing riders (before
and after the new stop opened). Each participant wore an accelerometer and completed the
survey before and after the new stop opened. The study found that obesity was much higher
among nonriders (65 percent) than new riders (26 percent) and continuing riders (15 percent).
In addition, continuing riders reported, on average, the highest levels of moderate physical
activity (Brown, et al., 2009). The study indicates that among the many social and environmental
benefits to transit, (e.g. less pollution, increased productivity, safety, etc.) personal health benefits
are positively associated with transit as well.
A more extensive study published in the Journal of Public Health Policy found a similar
relationship between transit use and increased physical activity. The study sampled 4,156
employed respondents of the Atlanta survey, Strategies for Metropolitan Atlanta’s Regional
What Makes a Community Walkable?
19
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Transportation and Air Quality (SMARTRAQ), and evaluated the total distance walked per day
for transportation purposes as measured over a two consecutive day period (one weekend day
maximum). Of this sample, 5.4 percent of respondents used some form of transit. The study
found that 2.6 percent of respondents met the physical activity recommendation solely by walking
for transportation and 8.3 percent recorded some level of walking for transportation. The study
found that additional transit trips were found to be a significant predictor of meeting physical
activity levels. In addition, the study found that employer sponsored transit incentives had a
significant positive relationship with meeting physical activity recommendations (Lachapelle, et
al., 2009). As with other literature, this study indicates the positive relationship between transit
and physical activity and the important health benefits associated with providing alternative
modes of transportation. As noted, employers can encourage increased physical activity by
supplementing the cost of transit and could further promote physical activity by locating in areas
where transit is a viable alternative for getting to and from work.
Finally, in the 2008 literature review, Saelens and Handy present several studies which also show a
positive correlation between public transit and walking/cycling (to work) to increased levels of
physical activity. Among other things, these studies specifically show that: there is a greater
likelihood of walking more than 30 minutes per day in areas of higher residential density (Saelens,
et al., 2008); walking/cycling for transport related to higher land use mix (Saelens, et al., 2008);
increased likelihood of active transportation with a greater objective transit access (Saelens, et al.,
2008)
2.6 LIMITATIONS
With almost all of the available literature and with regard the research cited above, the unknown
causal relationship between physical activity and the built environment remains as the most
significant limitation in this field of study. Frank et al. seem to summarize this limitation the best:
“If there is an association between walkable neighborhoods and walking (as there generally is), it
is not clear in which direction the causal arrow points. People walk more in neighborhoods that
offer mixed use, sidewalks, and other pedestrian attractions, but this may well be because walkers
What Makes a Community Walkable?
20
Chapter 2
Literature Review
preferentially move to such neighborhoods, which couch potatoes who want to minimize their
walking opt for auto-dependent suburbs instead” (Frumkin, et al., 2004). This is true with the
many other relationships cited above including transit, aesthetics, physical aesthetics, etc. Future
studies will seek to support the current cross-sectional analysis by comparing individuals from
different types of neighborhoods to control for walking preferences. Relocation or before-after
studies (e.g. the Brown study cited above concerning a new light rail station), will help resolve
these limitations by measuring the true impact of increased walkability features and physical
activity.
Another major limitation to the literature cited above includes the understanding that many
factors beyond the built environment impact physical activity and the medical conditions
associated with overweight and obesity. These include family medical history, education, income,
attitudes and personal preferences, dietary habits and other physical conditions which limit
exercise. While many of these studies attempt to control these factors, it is impossible to single
out the built environment and measure its sole influence on physical activity. In 2002, the US
Task Force on Community Preventive Services identified six interventions which it found
effective in encouraging physical activity. Only one of these was changing environmental factors
and policy, and it was narrowly focused on enhanced access to areas of recreation and physical
activity. The other recommendations involved public outreach, education, and behavioral support
programs (Frumkin, et al., 2004).
Finally, a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Health Promotion attempts to address
this limitation and identify the existence of a causal relationship by controlling for personal
preferences and predispositions toward residential choice. The study used both cross-sectional
and quasi-longitudinal designs to examine data from eight traditional and suburban
neighborhoods in Northern California. The sample consisted of recent movers which were asked
to report changes of physical activity from the time of their move and a control group of existing
residents which reported changes over the past year. After controlling for attitudes toward
residential preference, researchers found a correlation between physical activity and those who
favored walking and biking. However, preferences for neighborhood design characteristics were
What Makes a Community Walkable?
21
Chapter 2
Literature Review
not found to be statistically significant. Researchers explained this by stating, “…not all
individuals who like to walk and bike put importance on this factor when deciding where to live.”
The quasi-longitudinal analysis also showed that, after controlling for personal preferences,
resident relocations were found to be positively associated with increased physical activity. This
study supports the hypothesis that changes to the built environment impact physical activity.
Finally, specific design factors which were found to be the most significant indicator of physical
activity include neighborhood attractiveness, maintenance, housing options, and large street trees.
Important social characteristics included diverse neighbors, frequent interaction, similar
economic levels, quiet, low crime, low traffic, safe for walking, and street lighting. While this
study is important in addressing the causal limitations of prior studies, more research is needed to
better assess intensity and total amounts of physical activity while better evaluating personal
preferences related to physical activity (Handy, et al., 2007).
What Makes a Community Walkable?
22
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
3.0 C H A P T E R 3 – R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y
This research project is intended to help readers better understand the relationship between the
built environment and physical activity and its impact on overweight and obesity in the United
States. The research presented above is intended to summarize the growing body of research
which identifies the connection between urban sprawl and public health. In order to better
understand this relationship, a walkability survey was developed in collaboration with Heath by
Design (HbD), an advocacy group centered in central Indiana. Among HbD’s primary objectives
is improving public health through promoting thoughtful environmental design, education and
awareness. The information collected in this survey will be analyzed and compared to physical
activity and health data provided by the Marion County Health Department (MCHD) and to
annual Behavioral Risk Factor Assessment Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys.
3.1 P URPOSE
As stated above, the primary purpose of this project is to help readers better understand the
growing body of research which identifies the relationship between the built environment and
physical activity. In addition, this project seeks to show that this relationship exists locally, within
central Indiana. Utilizing data provided in the annual BRFSS survey, the 2005 Marion County
Adult Obesity Assessment conducted by the MCHD, and the data collected in the 2009 HbD
Walkability Survey, the design of central Indiana neighborhoods will be mapped and analyzed to
show positive (or negative) associations1 to physical activity levels and overall personal health.
1
Limited statistical significance was determined, only positive or negative correlations based on crude trendlines,
general planning knowledge, and logical conclusions.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
23
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
In order to advance the notion that the built environment, physical activity, and physical fitness
are connected, raw data is needed to support this claim. In conjunction with HbD’s Evaluation
Committee, a walkability survey was developed in order to obtain this data. For the purposes of
this project, the survey developed by HbD was used as a tool to better understand this
relationship and to begin to make the connection between physical activity and neighborhood
design within the region. Building upon information provided in this survey and the 2007
Baseline Profile of Indianapolis, published by the MCHD, this project begins to map and further
analyze walkability in central Indiana.
In line with the objectives and claims of this research project, the HbD Evaluation Committee
continues to work towards identifying research and measures which improve walkability and
physical activity in central Indiana. In a kick-off presentation made to the HbD Coalition, the
following objectives were outlined as the Evaluation Committee’s purpose in implementing the
survey:
1. To test and demonstrate the use of this survey as a means of assessing the spectrum of
walkability found in Indiana neighborhoods.
2. To put stories to the importance of walkability with photographs and life applications.
3. To create GIS maps with walkability scores across central Indiana neighborhoods.
4. To identify priority issues and areas for local policy /advocacy.
5. To investigate potential associations between “health” and walking frequency by various
walkability factors.
6. To develop a model that can be used by other neighborhoods or groups to advance
walkability.
Finally, the collaboration between this research project and HbD was an effort not to duplicate
labor, but provide assistance to an advocacy group seeking to advance the ideas and claims
identical to those in this paper. The significant effort placed in the literature review, survey
development, and preliminary analysis will hopefully advance not only the knowledge of the
author, but also the goals and objectives of HbD. Making this connection and documenting the
What Makes a Community Walkable?
24
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
initial results of this survey, and future projects implemented by HbD, will advance the current
body of research and support the call for increased activity and investment in infrastructure,
policy, and programs which promote physical activity and better neighborhood design within
central Indiana.
3.2 P ROCESS
Beginning in January of 2009, and in collaboration with the HbD Evaluation Committee, a
walkability survey was discussed as a project to bring awareness to the walkability of central
Indiana neighborhoods. The initial survey was developed by the HbD Education Committee,
working in conjunction with students from the IUPUI School of Public and Environmental
Affairs (SPEA). Originally, this survey was developed as an education and advocacy tool in
which neighborhood groups could start to better understand the relationship between
neighborhood design and physical activity. The survey was also intended to help neighborhoods
uncover their own walkability issues and to document those areas where investment was needed
to help improve safety, physical infrastructure, and further promote increased walkability. These
students identified many existing instruments and prepared a version which included aspects of
walkability most pertinent to the mission of HbD.
In order to further advance the Coalition’s objectives, several revisions were made to the original
walkability survey. These revisions primarily involved changing response options to Likert scales
and adjusting the means of calculating scores. Additionally, destinations were added, as were
personal physical activity questions. The intent of these revisions was to provide an overall better
walkability instrument which could be used to evaluate various walkability factors within the
region, while making the instrument as user friendly as possible. These additions allowed the
Evaluation Committee to analyze and document walkability in the region and also compare
primary source data to prior Marion County health assessments and the annual BRFSS survey.
For reference, the survey can be found in Appendix A of this document. Further discussion on
the measurements used and the various limitations to this survey can be found below.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
25
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
The Evaluation Committee was asked to present the walkability survey at the monthly HbD
coalition meeting held on April 20, 2009. Tess Weathers, MPH, Evaluation Committee
Chairperson introduced the survey and presented a brief overview of its purpose, content, and
timeline while the author walked through an example of a completed survey taken as a test run.
Photos taken during two prior test surveys were used as examples of certain walkability
characteristics that coalition members should be looking for as they completed their survey.
Questions concerning ADA accessibility, sharing the survey with other organizations, and the
actual tabulation, analysis, and documentation of the survey where fielded at the end of the
presentation. Each question was addressed and coalition members appeared optimistic on the
surveys completion and its applicability in meeting HbD objectives.
The survey was distributed at the April 20, 2009 meeting and to the entire HbD coalition in a
subsequent email. Approximately 300 members were given four weeks during the month of May
to complete the walkability survey and return by fax, email or U.S. mail. Self addressed envelopes,
a fax number, and an exclusive email address was provided to survey respondents.
Approximately half of respondents submitted surveys by email, with the other half submitting by
fax or mail. In addition to completing the survey, members were asked to take photographs of
their neighborhood and submit along with their survey. All surveys were received by June 5,
2009, in which data entry and tabulation began. A total of 59 members completed the survey with
an approximate response rate of 20 percent. It should be noted that several surveys were
completed by associates of HbD members and not considered to be active members of the HbD
coalition.
Data entry, tabulation, and preliminary analysis for the survey were all conducted by the author.
With further guidance from the Evaluation Committee, preliminary results were reviewed and
discussed at a June 17, 2009 meeting. The initial results and preliminary analysis, in addition to
the ideas and issues discussed during this June meeting, were the primarily source of information
used in analysis and reported in this paper. Unless otherwise noted, all analysis and production of
material was produced by the author. Additional work and further statistical analysis will be
conduced by HbD with the assistance of the author following July 2009. The analysis provided in
What Makes a Community Walkable?
26
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
this paper will be used as the foundation for future analyses, surveys, and publications to be
published by the HbD Evaluation Committee. This includes a potential widespread walkability
survey to be released to all (or a representative sample) of central Indiana residents.
3.3 S URVEY
P ARTICIPANTS
Approximately 300 surveys were distributed exclusively to HbD members by email and by paper
at the April, 2009 HbD coalition meeting. The Evaluation Committee viewed the survey as a
pilot project in which preliminary issues regarding questions, data entry, tabulation, and user
error could be resolved before a potential mass survey was distributed. Respondents were asked
not to distribute the survey widespread to other associates, or employees within their respective
organizations for this reason, though several surveys were completed by non HbD members. It is
recognized that participants of this survey were clearly biased toward health and physical fitness
and represent a significant limitation to this study. This limitation is discussed further below.
M EASURES
The survey was originally developed as an advocacy and educational tool by students of SPEA and
in conjunction with HbD. In order to provide further analysis, the Evaluation Committee refined
the survey to include additional questions and a revised scoring model. The survey was designed
to give equal weight to the four walkability sections of the survey, Physical Conditions, Safety
Features, Perceived Safety, and Destinations. The score for each section was determined by the
sum of points earned in each section as a percent of total available points. At the conclusion of
the survey, an average was taken of each sections score to provide an evenly distributed
walkability score. The following section provides further details on the measures used within
each section of the survey.
Before beginning the first section of the survey, respondents were asked to provide the zip code
and boundaries of their neighborhood. Understanding that defining the boundaries of their
What Makes a Community Walkable?
27
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
neighborhood may be difficult, the questionnaire was revised to define boundaries as major
streets, or streets where those “who do not live in your neighborhood would routinely travel.”
This definition was intended to give respondents clear parameters to define their neighborhood,
as well as provide a level of consistency in comparing results across geographical areas.
Section I of the survey concerned the physical condition of sidewalks and multi-use trails within a
neighborhood. Questions involved the availability, repair, design, and amenities found within the
pedestrian environment. Respondents were asked to check the applicability of these features
based on a simple ordinal scale defined as: “Always or usually,” “About half the time,” “Seldom or
never,” and “Does not apply.” At the end of the section, a point value was applied to each checked
item based on its respective rank (i.e. 2 = Always or usually, 1 = About half the time, 0 = Seldom
or never, and 0 = Does not apply). The sum of these points was divided by the total points
possible to give a section walkability score. In reviewing the results, no issues concerning user
error or data entry were uncovered in this section.
Section II concerned safety features located within the neighborhood and specifically identified
crosswalks, crossing signals, and the time to cross the street. Respondents were asked to answer
“Yes” (2 points), “No” (0 points), or “There is no major intersection or NA” (1 point).
Originally, the final survey distributed to HbD members awarded two (2) points for those with no
major intersection in their neighborhood. While this does not raise a problem when calculating
individual walkability scores, issues arose when tabulating these results in Microsoft Excel. Thus,
one (1) point was awarded to those who indicated no major intersection existed.2 Also, after
deliberation by the Evaluation Committee, the placement of the third question (“Is the crossing
signal long enough to walk across the street”) was felt to be too specific and not consistent with
the broader nature of the questions asked in the section. This question will be removed and a
revised point system will be designed with additional distribution and analysis of the survey.
2
The respondent must have also answered “There is no major intersection or NA” to the first two questions in order to
receive a point value for the third question concerning time to cross the street. Otherwise a zero (0) point value was
awarded.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
28
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
In Section III, respondents were asked to consider the safety of their neighborhood when walking
alone during the day and at night. As above, respondents answered a simple “Yes” (2 points) or
“No” (0 points) to this question. Though this section only asked two questions, it was given
equal weight as a walkability factor, the same as general repair, pedestrian amenities, and
destinations in calculating the total walkability score. Though additional questions may be added
to this section in the future, no issues were uncovered regarding user error, data entry, or survey
tabulation.
Section IV of the survey concerned neighborhood destinations located within a ten minute walk
from home. The ten minute time (or approximately a half-mile distance at a 3mph walking
speed) is important as it has been shown to significantly impact the likelihood that residents will
choose to walk in their neighborhood. Respondents first were asked to indicate whether various
destinations were present in their neighborhood by answering “Yes” (1 point) or “No” (0 points).
For those in which respondents answered “Yes,” they were then asked if these destinations were
“Mostly connected” (2 points), “About half connected” (1 point), and “Mostly not connected” (0
points). The total points available for this section were 39. For those surveys in which
respondents answered “No” to the location of a destination and still answered to the degree of
connectivity, zero (0) points were awarded. Questions left blank were also scored as zero (0). No
issues concerning data entry or tabulation were found during the analysis of the survey, though
some issues were brought forward concerning negatively “double counting” the lack of various
destinations.
In Sections V and VI, respondents were asked to provide qualitative information concerning the
destinations most often walked and desirable destinations which are not available. In addition,
respondents were asked to describe the features in their neighborhood which made it enjoyable or
unpleasant to walk. Photographs of these areas were desired by the Evaluation Committee to help
“tell the story” of walkability in future reports. The information provided in these sections did
not impact the walkability score.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
29
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
Finally, respondents were asked to provide personal information. Basic demographic questions
were asked in this section along with more specific questions regarding health and physical
activity levels. Health questions were added to the survey in order to provide additional analysis
for this project and future HbD reports. Consideration was given to requesting specific height
and weight data, but ruled out given the limited distribution and possible intrusive nature of the
questions. Once completed, instructions were available to calculate an overall walkability score;
however, many chose not to complete this portion of the survey. All walkability scores were
eventually recalculated by the researcher, resolving user error and computing those scores not
calculated in the survey.
L IMITATIONS
There are many limitations to the methods used to develop, distribute, and dissect the results of
this survey. First, the survey was distributed to a biased sample of respondents. Solely based on
their participation in an advocacy group such as Health by Design, respondents were expected to
exercise more, meet recommended CDC levels of physical activity, weigh less, and live an overall
healthier lifestyle. In addition, it is reasonably expected that HbD respondents may rate the
walkability of their neighborhood in a biased fashion in order to further support the need for
investment in pedestrian/bicycling amenities. Secondly, the survey used to measure walkability
does not include all factors which impact walkability within neighborhood. Of these, several
safety, traffic, weather, and aesthetic (etc.) factors were not included in this survey. Finally,
without an even distribution or sample of central Indiana residents, the survey results cannot be
applied to the overall population of central Indiana. Neighborhood boundaries, even for those
living on the same street, may be drastically different among survey respondents. This impacts
which conditions and amenities are assessed, or are not assessed in the survey. With all this, little
weight can be given to the total or individual walkability scores calculated at the end of each
survey section.
The limitations to this survey are many, and undoubtedly include many more which are not listed
above. However, in defense of the survey, much of this assessment was developed as an advocacy
and educational tool. Thus, the walkability scores provided in each section were originally
What Makes a Community Walkable?
30
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
intended to intrigue and entice respondents to consider the walkability of their own
neighborhood, and what could be done to improve the overall pedestrian environment. The
distribution to the HbD coalition was viewed as a pilot project, in which the Evaluation
Committee could further develop other walkability measurement tools for the region. To that
end, it was never anticipated by the author or HbD that results of the survey would reveal any
measure of statistical significance between walkability factors and health data. The hope,
however, was that various logical conclusions and even preliminary correlations, whether or not
statistically significant, could be made concerning walkability and the regional health data. In
addition to these general assumptions, mapping the walkability characteristics collected by HbD
respondents begins to tell the story of walkability at the neighborhood level and show
stakeholders and policy makers that there are many reasons for further investment in pedestrian
facilities across central Indiana.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
31
Chapter 4
4.0
Results and Analysis
CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS
AND
ANALYSIS
4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Recognizing where we are today as a region, in terms of health, exercise, and urban infrastructure
is crucial in understanding the relationship between the built environment and physical activity.
Documenting these conditions and further providing evaluation measures which support the
need for improvement in lifestyle and investment in pedestrian infrastructure is the primary
purpose of this paper. In December 2007, the Marion County Health Department (MCHD)
released: Mapping the Intersection of Physical Activity & the Built Environment: A Baseline
Profile of Indianapolis. This report took the first step in examining current health trends and
physical activity levels in Indianapolis and measuring its relation to the built environment. The
walkability survey released by Health by Design (HbD) is an extension of this report and an effort
to evaluate specific walkability factors within Indianapolis which may impact physical activity.
The following section summarizes important findings of that report. In addition, further research
and analysis was prepared by the author.
4.1.1 BUILT ENVIRONMENT
As discussed and cited in Chapter 2, there are multiple aspects of the built environment which
impact walkability. Among others, these factors include density, physical infrastructure, safety,
connectivity, proximity, aesthetics, and pedestrian amenities. As the 2007 MCHD report
indicates, Indianapolis and the Indianapolis MSA rank at or near the bottom in many of these
categories. With regard to urban sprawl, Indianapolis ranked 56 out of 72 cities in a 2000 Urban
Environment Report for population density and 53 out of 72 in housing density. (Weathers,
2007). Table 4-1 from the 2007 MCHD report population and housing density in Indianapolis to
comparable U.S. cities.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
32
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Table 4-1: Indianapolis Population and Housing Density
Population Density 2000 (people per square
mile of land area
Rank*
Housing Density - 2000
(units per square mile of
land area)
Indianapolis, IN
2,161
Rank*
56th
9,74
53rd
Columbus, OH
3,384
33rd
1,556
28th
Detroit, MI
6,855
16th
2,703
19th
Milwaukee, WI
6,214
19th
2,594
20th
Baltimore, MD
8,058
12th
3,719
9th
Source: Marion County Health Department, Mapping the Intersection of Physical Activity and the Built Environment
* 1 = Best (most dense); 72 = Worst (least dense)
Concerning pedestrian infrastructure and safety, Indianapolis is average in terms of annual
spending on bicycle and pedestrian projects. The 2004 Mean Streets Report ranks the per capita
pedestrian spending of the largest 50 MSA’s. Indianapolis is ranked 25th, spending $0.64 per
person. Table 4-2 compares pedestrian death rates and federal spending dollars allocated to
pedestrian projects to various U.S. metropolitan areas. Concerning actual miles of sidewalks and
bike paths, Indianapolis has approximately twice the number of road miles than pedestrian miles.
The Indianapolis Department of Public Works provided a breakdown of pedestrian and street
miles for the 2007 MCHD report. These figures are reproduced in Table 4-3 below.
Table 4-2: Pedestrian Traffic Deaths and Average Annual Spending on Pedestrian Projects
Metro Area
Indianapolis, IN
Portion of all Traffic
Deaths that were
Pedestrian (2002-2003)
11.6%
Average Yearly Spending of Federal
Funds on Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects
per Capita (FY1998 - 2003)
$0.64
Spending
Rank
25
Columbus, OH
9.7%
$0.08
49
Detroit, MI
20.2%
$0.58
29
Milwaukee, WI
13.6%
$1.07
8
Baltimore, MD
17.0%
$0.49
31
$0.82
NA
U.S. Average
Source: Marion County Health Department, Mapping the Intersection of Physical Activity and the Built Environment;
Mean Streets 2004, Surface Transportation Policy Project
What Makes a Community Walkable?
33
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Table 4-3: Marion County Surface Measures – 2007*
Sidewalk miles
1,466
Bike path miles
65
Bike lane miles
14 **
Road miles
3,161
Ratio of road miles to sidewalk miles
2.16
Ratio of road miles to bike miles
40.01
Source: Marion County Health Department, Mapping the Intersection of Physical Activity and the Built Environment
* Includes bike lane mileage budgeted for 2008;
** May not include mileage for bike lanes on Michigan and New York Street constructed in Spring 2009.
Bike lanes on thoroughfares only. Bike paths include the Monon Trail, White River Greenway, etc.
As discussed in Chapter 2, neighborhoods in close proximity to desirable destinations encourage
walking and therefore increased physical activity. As discussed above, Indianapolis is not a dense
city, thus residential proximity to parks, transit stops, and commercial areas make it difficult for
pedestrians to walk to where they want to go. Estimates provided by the Indianapolis Department
of Metropolitan Development, Division of Planning and reported in the 2007 MCHD report
reiterate this point. Only half of Marion County residents live within ¼ mile from a bus stop,
while approximately 74 percent live within ½ mile. Forty-eight (48) percent live within ½ mile to
a public school, 17 percent live within ¼ mile to a public park, while only 23 percent live within ½
mile to a grocery store. Further Marion County proximity measures are outlined in Table 4-4
below:
Table 4-4: Marion County 2007 Proximity Measures
Estimated Population
491,567
Percent of Marion County
Population
57%
1/2 Mile to Local Bus
633,778
74%
1/4 Mile to Public Park
148,612
17%
1/4 Mile to Greenway*
246,514
29%
1/2 Mile to Public School
412,016
48%
1/2 Mile to Supermarket
197,636
23%
Proximity Measures - 2007
1/4 Mile to Local Bus
Source: Marion County Health Department, Mapping the Intersection of Physical Activity and the Built Environment
* Greenways are linear green space usually along rivers or creeks. The Monon Trail, Canalwalk, the Canal Towpath
are considered greenways.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
34
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Among other key destinations, proximity to parks is one of the most promising locations which
can encourage increased physical activity. Unfortunately, as with other proximity, density, and
funding measures, Indianapolis does not rank favorably in this regard. According to research
provided by the Trust for Public Land, only 4.8 percent of Indianapolis land area is devoted to
parks. Parkland acres per 1,000 residents averages 14.2 acres and the average number of parks per
square mile is only 0.5. Park related expenditures per resident for fiscal year 2005 were $45,
though this figure may be much lower with recent budget cuts. Table 4-5 provides data on
parkland available to Indianapolis as compared to other comparable U.S. cities. This data,
reported in the 2007 MCHD report, was made available by Keep Indianapolis Beautiful and The
Trust for Public Land: Center for City Park Excellence.
Table 4-5: Available Parkland and Tree Canopy
Measure
Average number of parks
per square mile
Indianapolis Columbus
Detroit
Milwaukee
Baltimore
Average of
60 cities
0.5
1
0.4
1.5
4.3
-
Park area per 1,000
residents, acres ( 2006)
14.2
18
6.6
16.3
7.7
18.8
Parkland as percent of city
area (2006)
4.8%
9.8%
6.6%
9.7%
9.5%
9.8%
Total city tree canopy (1992)
7.4%
17.5%
18.3%
6.9%
33.5%
-
Park related total
$45
$77
$57
$47
$52
$89
expenditure per resident
(2005)
Source: Marion County Health Department, Mapping the Intersection of Physical Activity and the Built Environment
Infrastructure and investment in multi-modal transportation can help encourage increased
physical activity in daily transportation. Unfortunately, for a city its size, Indianapolis has one of
the most underfunded public transportation programs the United States. In addition (or as a
result) to a neglected transit system, Marion County residents do not use public transportation in
comparison to other large cities. Table 4-6 highlights transportation statistics provided by the
What Makes a Community Walkable?
35
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
U.S. 2000 Census, Urban Environment Report. As shown, only 2.2 percent (1.7 percent in 2007)1
walked or biked to work and 2.4 percent (1.5 percent in 2007)1 used public transportation.
Table 4-6: Means to Travel by Work (2000)
Walk or bike
Indianapolis
2.2%
Rank
56th
Columbus
3.5%
Detroit
3.0%
Milwaukee
5.0%
Baltimore
7.4%
U.S.
4.1%
Public transit
2.4%
50th
3.9%
8.7%
10.3%
19.5%
4.7%
Work at home
2.5%
45th
2.3%
1.8%
1.7%
2.3%
3.3%
Carpool
12.3%
47th
10.8%
17.1%
13.6%
15.2%
12.2%
Drive alone
80.6%
-
79.5%
69.4%
69.4%
55.6%
75.7%
Source: Marion County Health Department, Mapping the Intersection of Physical Activity and the Built Environment
To further evaluate how Marion County residents travel to work, Figures 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the
percent of workers by Census block groups age 16 and over who walk or use public transportation
to work. Clearly, these figures show that residents living closer to the central business district
walk and use public transportation more often. As factors which encourage increased walkability,
this may be due in part to certain characteristics that the city center offers such as a grid street
network; closer proximity to places of employment and/or bus stops; and higher population and
housing density. However socioeconomic factors, not discussed in detail within this report, such
as income and race may also partly explain these trends.
1
U.S. Census Bureau 2007 American Community Survey
What Makes a Community Walkable?
36
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Figure 4-1: Percent Not Driving (e.g. walking or biking) to Work - 2000
What Makes a Community Walkable?
37
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Figure 4-2: Percent Taking Public Transportation to Work (2000)
What Makes a Community Walkable?
38
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
4.1.2 HEALTH
AND
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Indianapolis and the State of Indiana are far below the national average in terms of health and
physical activity. In a 2007 report by the Trust for America’s Health, F as in Fat: How Obesity
Policies are Failing in America, Indiana ranked 9th highest among states for obesity rates, 13th
highest in terms of inactivity, and the 14th worst for rate of diabetes (Weathers, 2007).
Concerning physical activity, the 2009 American College of Sports and Medicine’s (ACSM)
American Fitness Index ranked Indianapolis 36th out of the 50 largest MSA’s in terms of physical
activity (ACSM, 2009). Eating healthier foods, controlling weight, and increasing physical activity
go hand and hand with investing in the pedestrian environment and improving personal health.
The following section summarizes baseline health and physical activity conditions for
Indianapolis provided by the 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), the 2005
MCHD Adult Obesity Needs Assessment, and the 2009 ACSM American Fitness Index.
2005 MCHD Adult Obesity Needs Assessment
The 2005 Marion County, IN Adult Obesity Needs Assessment surveyed 4,784 Marion County
residents and reported on the state of physical activity and obesity within Indianapolis. The study
found that one out of four (25.6 percent) of Marion County residents were overweight, while 60.7
percent were considered overweight or obese (MCHD, 2006). Body Mass Index (BMI) was also
found to vary across gender, race, and income as Black females living in Marion County were
most at risk for obesity (39.1 percent) and overweight and obesity (69 percent). Latino’s were the
most at risk males with 68 percent overweight or obese. Also reported, the risk of obesity
increased as income fell, as 34 percent of the lowest income earners were obese. This is
compared to only 23 percent obese for the highest income earners. Finally, the prevalence of
overweight and obesity varied geographically across Marion County with the highest percentage
of obese individuals (> 30 percent) residing in central Marion County. A band running from east
to west, just north of I-70, contained the highest number of obese individuals. Figures 4-3 and 44 illustrate the geographic distribution of percent obese and overweight and obese within Marion
County.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
39
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Figure 4-3: Marion County, IN Obesity Levels
What Makes a Community Walkable?
40
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Figure 4-4: Marion County, IN Overweight and Obesity Levels
What Makes a Community Walkable?
41
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Concerning physical activity, the survey found that as expected, Marion County residents with
lower BMI’s were more physically active and met CDC recommended activity levels. The survey
also found that 80 percent reported having a safe, convenient and affordable place to exercise in
their neighborhood. Of those reporting not having a convenient place to exercise, only five (5)
percent reported specific safety concerns. The most common of these concerns were personal
safety (35 percent), unsafe walkways (25 percent), and dangerous traffic (14 percent). Finally,
between one third and one-half reported walking in their neighborhood at least one time per
week, with those in higher BMI categories walking less often.
BRFSS
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is an ongoing telephone survey which
monitors health related behaviors for all 50 states including large metropolitan areas and various
U.S. territories. According to data provided by the 2007 BRFSS survey, approximately 27.3
percent of Indianapolis residents were overweight while 62 percent are either overweight or
obese. These figures indicate a slightly higher percent overweight and obese than those reported
in the 2005 MCHD assessment. In addition, 2007 data indicated that less than half (48.7 percent)
of Indianapolis residents met CDC recommended guidelines for physical activity.
2009 ACSM American Fitness Index
In an effort to help communities identify opportunities to improve health and physical activity,
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) developed the American Sports Index which
assesses the community fitness of the largest 50 U.S. metropolitan areas (MSAs). This index
evaluates various health measures including preventative health behaviors, levels of chronic
disease, access to health care, in addition to community resources and policies which promote
physical activity. The index rates each city and provides an AFI score which is used to rank the
largest MSAs. Released in May 2009, the AFI reported that the Indianapolis MSA was 36 out of
50 in terms of community fitness. Cited Indianapolis strengths include higher State standards for
physical activity education and a larger number of golf courses per capita. The following are
some of its challenges, much of which reaffirms data reported above:
What Makes a Community Walkable?
42
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Lower percent of city land area as
ƒ
Fewer tennis courts per capita
parkland
ƒ
Fewer farmers’ markets per capita
ƒ
Fewer acres of parkland per capita
ƒ
Lower percent bicycling or walking to
ƒ
Lower percent using public
ƒ
work
transportation to work
ƒ
Fewer dog parks per capita
ƒ
Fewer ball diamonds per capita
ƒ
Fewer swimming pools per capita
ƒ
Fewer park playgrounds per capita
ƒ
Lower park-related expenditures per
ƒ
Fewer recreation centers per capita
capita
Figure 4-5 illustrates where Indianapolis stands compared to the best, the worst, and similar cities
across the county. For the full AFI Indianapolis summary, refer to Appendix D of this report.
Figure4-5: ACSM American Fitness Index Rankings for Selected Cities
* Significant data not available for 5 of the 50 largest MSAs, thus AFI rankings are from 1 – 45
What Makes a Community Walkable?
43
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
4.2 SURVEY RESULTS
In collaboration with HbD, a walkability survey was distributed to coalition members during the
month of May 2009. A total of 59 surveys were completed, with an approximate response rate of
20 percent. As discussed in Chapter 3, the purpose of this survey was to initiate a pilot evaluation
tool which would help provide additional insight into various walkability concerns of central
Indiana neighborhoods. The survey was not intended to characterize a representative sample of
residents living within central Indiana nor is any conclusion intended to provide any degree of
scientific significance. Working with HbD, to develop, distribute, and analyze the results, the
author used these preliminary results as the basis for basic analysis, observations, and assertions
made in this paper. The following section outlines the results of the survey. For a complete
breakdown of these results refer to Appendix B of this report.
Surveys were distributed by email to all HbD members across the State of Indiana, with the
majority of members residing in central Indiana. Figure 4-6 illustrates the distribution of HbD
members who completed the survey. As shown, Marion County (68 percent), followed by
Hamilton County (17 percent) had the largest distribution of returned surveys. Respondents
were predominately female (66 percent) and between the ages of 19 and 49 years old (76 percent).
No one under the age of 18 and only one person over the age of 70 completed the survey. A
significant portion of respondents also reported having no children (38) and living in a singlefamily home (81 percent).
What Makes a Community Walkable?
44
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Figure 4-6: Completed Surveys by County
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
Physical Condition
Section I of the survey concerned the physical qualities of the pedestrian environment. Of the
neighborhoods assessed, respondents reported that approximately 50 percent of streets had
sidewalks while 62 percent of neighborhoods had multi-use trails. Of these facilities, respondents
reported that sidewalks were in good repair (51 percent) and clean (63 percent). The majority
also reported that the width of sidewalks and paths (64 percent) were wide enough for two people
to pass at the same time and had curbs between the street and sidewalk (65 percent). Though 65
percent reported that sidewalks had curbs separating the sidewalk from the street, only 35 percent
reported having buffers such as grass, trees, and/or parked cars separating them form moving
vehicles.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
45
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Those with disabilities may be interested in the accessibility of the pedestrian environment to
wheelchairs and various mobility aids. Forty-two (42 percent) reported that sidewalk and paths
would accommodate these tools. In addition, seventy percent reported that sidewalks were free of
obstructions which impede the pedestrian realm. The lowest pedestrian amenity reported
available in neighborhoods were ample places to rest. Only 17 percent of respondents reported
having places to rest or socialize (e.g. benches, low walls, etc.) available in their neighborhood.
The average walkability score across all surveys for Section I – Physical Condition was 57 percent.
Safety
Sections I and II of the survey concerned certain neighborhood safety qualities (e.g. crosswalks,
crossing signals, and the perception of safety). In Section I, respondents were asked to report
whether these features were located within their neighborhood. Forty –four (44) percent reported
having crosswalks, while 49 percent reported having crossing signals at major intersections.
Section II asked respondents to indicate whether they felt safe walking in their neighborhood
during the day and at night. Overwhelmingly, respondents felt safe during the day (98 percent),
while only 63 percent reported feeling safe at night. The average walkability score across all
surveys for Section II – Safety Features was 53 percent. The average walkability score for Section
III – Perceived Safety was 83 percent, the highest of all sections.
Destinations
Section IV of survey concerned the availability of neighborhood destinations located within a ten
minute walk. Respondents answered “Yes” or “No” to the availability of these destinations, and
for those destinations in which respondents answered “Yes,” they were also asked to rate how
connected they were via sidewalks or multi-use paths. The most available destination within
neighborhoods was Places of Worship (75 percent), followed by Schools or Childcare facilities (73
percent), Parks (68 percent), and Restaurants (68 percent). The most connected of these
destinations (if they existed in a neighborhood at all) were Community Centers (95 percent),
Medical Clinics (87 percent), banks (75 percent), and parks (75 percent). Figure 4-7 illustrates the
availability of these destinations within the surveyed neighborhood in addition to their degree of
What Makes a Community Walkable?
46
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
connectivity. The average walkability score across all surveys for Section IV – Destinations was
45 percent, the lowest of all categories.
Figure 4-7: Availability and Connectivity of Neighborhood Destinations within a Ten Minute Walk
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
Qualitative questions regarding the destinations in which respondents most often walked and
most desired to walk but couldn’t were also asked in Section IV. The top destinations in which
respondents walked the most often were Parks, Grocery Store, and Restaurants. Most desired, but
unavailable of these destinations were Grocery Stores and Restaurants.
Demographics
The final section of the survey asked respondents to provide basic demographic information and
a few personal details. In addition to providing general information on survey respondents, these
questions enabled the Evaluation Committee and the author to look at certain correlations
What Makes a Community Walkable?
47
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
between health, physical activity, and the built environment. The following section provides
further information on these results.
As reported, 66 percent of survey respondents were female while 34 percent were male. The
largest percent of these respondents were between the ages of 30-39 (29 percent), followed by 1929 (24 percent), and 40-49 (24 percent). Thirty-eight (38) out of 59 reported having no kids,
while 81 percent reported living in a single-family residence. Concerning, self-reported health
status, 80 percent of respondents considered themselves in “Very Good” or “Excellent” health.
Only three (3) percent reported their health condition as “Fair” and only eight (8) percent
reported having a physical condition which limited their ability to walk.
Survey respondents were also asked to report the reasons why they chose to walk in their
neighborhood. Almost always, respondents reported several reasons, including the most frequent
reason, “Exercise” (90 percent of respondents), followed by “Enjoying the Outdoors” (80 percent
of respondents). Sixty-eight (68 percent) reported walking at least once a week while 24 percent
reported walking monthly. When they did walk in their neighborhood, 51 percent reported
walking at least 20 minutes, and the median number of days participants reported walking during
the prior week was 3 days. Figure 4-8 illustrates how often HbD members walk and the time they
spend walking in their neighborhood.
Figure 4-8: Frequency and Time Spent Walking in Neighborhood
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
48
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Total walkability scores were calculated at the end of each survey by averaging individual section
walkability scores (i.e. Physical Condition, Safety Features, Perceived Safety and Destinations).
The average total walkability score for all surveys was 59 percent. Table 4-7 summarizes the
walkability scores for each section and Figures 4-9 and 4-10 illustrate these results. Maps
illustrating the walkability scores of each neighborhood can be found in Appendix C.
Table 4-7: HbD Walkability Score Result Summary
Range
Categorical Distribution
Survey Section
Mean
Median
Mode
Min
Max
0 – 25.9%
Physical Condition
57%
67%
0%
0%
100%
11
6
27
15
Safety Features
53%
67%
100%
0%
100%
20
15
1
23
Perceived Safety
81%
100%
100%
0%
100%
1
21
0
37
Destination
45%
38%
77%
0%
100%
24
9
11
15
59%
58%
86%
13%
100%
5
18
20
16
Overall Score
26 – 50.9% 51 – 75.9%
76 - 100%
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
Figure 4-9: Distribution of HbD Walkability Scores
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
49
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Figure 4-10: Categorical Distribution of Section Walkability Scores
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; HbD Evaluation Committee
As these figures illustrate, the availability of destinations which are adequately connected via
sidewalks and trails is the most deficient walkability characteristic in central Indiana
neighborhoods. Priority should be given by HbD and other agencies to improving this factor.
Strategies which will aid in this effort include updated zoning regulations, transit-oriented
development, and economic incentives which support infill and neighborhood businesses.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
50
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
4.3 ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
The following section provides preliminary analysis of the HbD Walkability Survey in
relationship to baseline Indianapolis health, physical activity, and environmental data. Though
consultation, cross-tabulation data, and statistical significance was determined by the HbD
Evaluation Committee, all analysis including figures, maps, charts, and text were provided by the
author. The analysis and discussion presented below was conducted exclusively by the author
and any conclusions or opinions presented do not reflect that of HbD. As discussed, future
analysis and survey refinement will be conducted by HbD with the objective of implementing a
larger scientific survey.
Health
As the survey was distributed exclusively to HbD coalition members, mindful of the health
benefits that routine walking can provide, it was expected that self-reported health, walking
frequency, average walking, and time spent walking would be higher than the average
Indianapolis resident. The following section examines whether these assumptions held true as
compared to the rest of Indianapolis. Survey questions were designed in order to directly compare
data provided annual BRFSS surveys. As expected, Figure 4-11 illustrates that HbD respondents
are healthier than the average Indianapolis residents.
Figure 4-11: BRFSS and HbD Self-Reported Health Status
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
51
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Looking at health data further, self-reported health responses were compared to the walkability of
each neighborhood and measured against the overall HbD walkability score. In order to better
measure the statistical significance of this comparison, walkable neighborhoods were classified in
two categories, Less Walkable (0 – 50.9 percent) and More Walkable (51 – 100 percent). As
expected, those who reported living in more walkable neighborhoods, also reported their health
status as very good (47 percent) or excellent (42 percent). In total, 89 percent of those living in
walkable neighborhoods reported having very good or excellent health, whereas only 65 percent
of those living in less walkable neighborhoods reported the same favorable health condition.
Table 4-8 summarizes these results in addition to providing the statistical significant as measured
by HbD.
Table 4-8: Relationship between Self-Reported Health Status and Overall Walkability
Overall Walkability Score
Health Status
Less Walkable (0 - 50.9%)
More Walkable (51 - 100%)
Fair
8.7%
0.0%
Good
26.1%
11.1%
Very Good
52.2%
47.2%
Excellent
13.0%
41.7%
Pearson Chi-Square = 0.032 (statistically significant across groups)
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; HbD Evaluation Committee
Finally, walkability was measured in association with the walking frequency. As with self-reported
health status, walkability scores were grouped by less walkable and more walkable neighborhoods.
Though not statistically significant, these results show a tendency toward increased physical
activity in more walkable neighborhoods. Seventy-five (75) percent of those living in more
walkable neighborhoods reported walking everyday or at least a few times a week. This is
compared to only 57 percent who reported the same walking frequency in less walkable
neighborhoods.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
52
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Table 4-9: Relationship between Walking Frequency and Overall Walkability
Overall Walkability Score
Walking Frequency
Less Walkable (0 - 50.9%)
More Walkable (51 -100%)
Never
4.3%
0.0%
Rarely
4.3%
8.3%
Few times/month
34.8%
16.7%
Few times/week
26.1%
38.9%
Every day or nearly so
30.4%
36.1%
Pearson Chi-Square = 0..325 (not statistically significant across groups)
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; HbD Evaluation Committee
Built Environment
As discussed in Chapter 2, design characteristics offer the widest range of factors which may
impact physical activity. These characteristics include factors such as the availability of sidewalks,
roadway design, architectural features, public art, tree-lined streets, and the street network. Of
these, connectivity plays an important role in promoting physical activity and is often associated
with the design of the street network. In older, traditional neighborhoods, streets were
constructed in a grid pattern, providing connectivity and access at each block. Newer suburban
developments, generally constructed after 1950, were planned to provide access to only major
roadways, designed to carry heavier traffic volumes. This distinction is important as it is often
associated with characteristics of sprawling, auto oriented neighborhoods found in the suburbs.
One way to examine if there is a correlation between connectivity and physical activity is by
looking at the year home of construction (older homes will have been built on streets with a grid
network) in association with walkability.
Figure 4-13 illustrates the median year home built for 2000 Census block groups in Marion
County, while Figure 4-14 illustrates the average median home built for the HbD surveyed
neighborhoods. Notice in Figure 4-13, that older homes are located closer to the city center on a
grid network of streets. As you extend farther from the city center, homes are newer, streets are
What Makes a Community Walkable?
53
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
farther apart and less connected. Also notice that in Figure 4-14, that newer neighborhoods
farther from the city center have lower HbD Total Walkability Scores. Though a loose
correlation, this observation is reiterated in Figure 4-12. As the average median year of home
construction grows, total walkability for HbD neighborhoods declines.
Figure 4-12: Correlation between Average Median Year Home Construction and HbD Walkability Score
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
54
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Figure 4-13: Median Year Home Constructed by U.S. Census Block Group
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
Figure 4-14: Average Median Year Home Constructed and HbD Walkability Score
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
55
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Destinations
Of the four survey sections, HbD respondents reported the availability of walkable destinations
within a ten minute walk as the least walkable factor of their neighborhood (47 percent). In order
to improve this measure and increase the walkability of Indianapolis neighborhoods, destinations
in which residences walk on a daily basis are needed. These destinations include grocery stores,
bus stops, and workplaces. Figure 4-15 compares the availability and connectivity of destinations
in HbD neighborhoods, grouped by trips made daily/weekly and trips made monthly. As
expected, monthly destinations were far less available.
Figure 4-15: Availability of Daily/Weekly and Monthly Destinations
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
What is important to consider in this figure is the availability of destinations in which residents
walk to most frequently (e.g. grocery store, bus stop). Unfortunately, as shown, these are some of
most unavailable destinations reported in surveyed neighborhoods. To reiterate this observation,
survey respondents reported that the grocery store was the most desired destination they would
like to walk to, but currently couldn’t. In order to encourage increased physical activity (and also
improve the availability of healthy foods), more emphasis needs to be placed on encouraging,
promoting, and sustaining neighborhood grocery stores.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
56
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Also concerning neighborhood destinations, one of the most important factors in promoting
increased physical activity is the accessibility to parks, trails, and greenways. In addition to
providing area to exercise, parks offer natural beauty, opportunities to socialize, walk the dog, and
play with children, all of which are common reasons for walking. As the HbD survey indicated,
parks were the number one destination walked to by HbD members, as 40 respondents reported
having a park within a ten minute walk. Figure 4-16 illustrates the availability of park and trails
within Marion County along with the HbD overall walkability score. It is interesting to note that
the four neighborhoods which received a walkability score below 25 percent did not contain a
park or have convenient access to a trail or greenway. Poor access to parks, and most likely many
other destinations, point to the unfortunate pedestrian environment, and the resulting low
walkability score.
Figure 4-16: Marion County Parks and Tail System and HbD Total Walkability Score
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey; What Makes a Community Walkable, 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
57
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
As these results indicate, walkable neighborhoods contain healthier residents and encourage
increased physical activity. In addition, access to desirable destinations which people walk to
most often (e.g. grocery stores, bus stops, and parks) is associated with increased walkability.
While it is difficult to determine whether or not healthier residents choose to live in more
walkable neighborhoods or if increased walkability can actually lead to improved health, this
survey is important as it is one of the first which documents this relationship in central Indiana.
It is also important as it supports the region’s need for more walkable neighborhoods; additional
investment in pedestrian amenities; and transportation facilities which are not reliant on the
automobile. Furthermore, these results demonstrate the serious impact urban sprawl has on
public health.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
58
Chapter 5
5.0
Conclusion
CHAPTER 5– CONCLUSION
While it is not possible to come to a concrete conclusion based on the HbD survey or the body of
health and planning literature, several general observations and preliminary conclusions can be
made based on this data. First, overweight and obesity is a significant problem facing the nation,
in which inactive lifestyles play a major role. Second, urban sprawl characterizes much of built
environment in which we live and this environment impacts the level of physical activity we
receive on a daily basis. Third, Indianapolis residents are significantly overweight and behind
other major cities in many physical fitness measures and other contributing factors. Finally,
based on preliminary HbD survey results, the walkability of Indianapolis neighborhoods is
correlated to its design, connectivity, and proximity to parks. The following provides a few
recommendations which city leaders and health advocates can use in improving the walkability
and health of Indianapolis neighborhoods.
R ECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the research and information gained through this process, several recommendations can
be made to improve the walkability of Indianapolis neighborhoods and significantly improve the
physical activity and health of Indianapolis residents. As with any considerable change, many of
these actions require significant financial investment, strong political leadership, and community
support. Further research and collaboration such as this project are needed to further make the
case that significant changes are necessary to improve the health and welfare of Indianapolis
residents. The following are just some of the ways in which Indianapolis can make these changes.
ƒ
Require sidewalks in all new development.
ƒ
Fund the acquisition of new parkland in Indianapolis to meet national standards.
ƒ
Provide additional funding to public transportation and implement on a regional level.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
59
Chapter 5
ƒ
Conclusion
Reevaluate school policies which prohibit or otherwise hinder children from walking to
and from school.
ƒ
Provide incentives and programs to promote neighborhood grocery stores and farmers
markets.
ƒ
Require new development to increase pedestrian and vehicular connectivity, ideally
eliminating cul-de-sacs from all new residential development.
ƒ
Encourage mixed-use development in all of Marion County.
ƒ
Require new development to install pocket parks or places to rest in certain areas to
encourage walking, socialization, and “eyes on the street;” in addition to providing
seniors and those with disabilities increased mobility options.
ƒ
Reduce parking requirements or set maximums to increase density and
encourage/require alternative means of transportation.
Research has shown that overweight and obesity are serious medical problems, which increase the
likelihood of other serious medical conditions. These conditions cost individuals billions of
dollars in increased taxes and personal healthcare premiums. The impact of these conditions can
be reduced by encouraging physical activity and making walking a routine activity in our daily
lives. In order to make this connection, the neighborhoods in which we live need to be designed
and maintained in a way which encourages physical activity. If not necessarily a causal
relationship, significant correlations do exist between the built environment and public health.
This paper has cited numerous publications which support this claim and provide specific
Indianapolis data that shows evidence of the need for walkability, physical fitness, and health
improvements within the region. If nothing else, this paper has provided readers with a better
understating of how the built environment impacts physical activity and how, with sound
planning principles, our neighborhoods and communities can be better for our health.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
60
Chapter 6
6.0
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Active Living by Design Active Living by Design Primer [Online] // Active Living by
Design. - 2007. - http://www.activelivingbydesign.org/events-resources/resources/activeliving-design-primer.
2. Active Living Research Research Summaries & Briefs [Online] = Designing for Active
Transportation // Active Living Research. - February 2005. - March 19, 2009. http://www.activelivingresearch.org/resourcesearch/summaries.
3. American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) American Fitness Index [Report]. - 2009.
4. Atkinson, Jennifer L. [et al.] The Association of Neighborhood Design and Recreational
Environments with Physical Activity [Journal] // American Journal of Health Promotion. March/April 2005. - 4 : Vol. 19. - pp. 304-309.
5. Beaumont, Constance E. and Pianca,Elizabeth G. [et al.] Why Johnny Can't Walk to
School: Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl [Report]. - Washington D.C. :
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2002.
6. BRFSS Prevalence and Trends Data [Online] // CDC. - 2007. - September 20, 2007. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/index.asp.
7. Brown, Barbara B. and Werner, Carol M. Before and After a New Light Rail Stop
[Journal] // Journal of the American Planning Association. - Chicago, IL : American Planning
Association, 2009. - No. 1 : Vol. 75.
8. Cervero, Robert Land-Use Mixing and Suburban Mobility [Article] // Transportation
Quarterly. - July 1988. - No. 3 : Vol. 42. - pp. 429-446.
9. Chau, Josephine Physical Activity and Building Stronger Communities [Report] / School of
Public Health, Centre for Physical Activity and Health ; University of Sydney. - [s.l.] :
Premier's Council for Active Living, 2007. http://www.cpah.health.usyd.edu.au/research/reports.php.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
61
Chapter 6
Bibliography
10. Chenoweth, David and Bortz II, Walter M. East Carolina University [Online] // College of
Health & Human Performance, Department of Health Education & Promotion. - 2008. April 1, 2008. - http://www.ecu.edu/picostcalc/.
11. Chin, Gary K.W.[ et al.] Accessiblity and Connectivity in Physical Activity Studies: The
Impact of Missing Pedestrian Data [Journal] // Journal of Preventive Medicine. - [s.l.] :
Elsevier, January 2008. - 1 : Vol. 46. - pp. 41-45.
12. Cunningham,Grazia O. and Michael, Yvonne L. Concepts Guiding the Study of the Impact
of the Built Environment on Physical Activity for Older Adults: A Review of Literature
[Journal] // American Journal of Health Promotion. - [s.l.] : American Journal of Health
Promotion, Inc., July/August 2004. - No. 6 : Vol. 18. - pp. 435-443.
13. Ewing, Reid [et al.] Relationship between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obestiy, and
Morbidity [Journal] // American Journal of Health Promotion. - 2003. - pp. 47-57.
14. Ewing, Reid; Kreutzer, Richard and Lawrence Frank and Company Inc. Understanding
the Relationship Between Public Health and the Built Environment [Report]. - [s.l.] : LEEDND Core Committee, 2006.
15. Foster, Sarah and Giles-Corti, Billie The Built Environment, Neighborhood Crime and
Constrained Physical Activity: An Exploration of Inconsistent Findings [Journal] // American
Journal of Preventative Medicine. - [s.l.] : Elsevier, 2008. - Vol. 47. - pp. 241-251.
16. Frank, Lawrence [et al.] A Hierarchy of Sociodemographic and Environmental Correlates of
Walking and Obesity [Journal] // American Journal of Preventative Medicine. - [s.l.] :
Elsevier, Inc., 2008. - Vol. 47. - pp. 172--178.
17. Frank, Lawrence, Engelke, Peter O. and Schmid, Thomas L. Heath and Community
Design [Book]. - Washington D.C. : Island Press, 2003.
18. Frumkin, Howard Healthy Community Design. - 2007.
19. Frumkin, Howard Urban Sprawl and Public Health [Journal] // Public Health Reports. May-June 2002. - Vol. 117. - pp. 201-217.
20. Frumkin, Howard; Frank, Lawrence and Jackson, Richard Urban Sprawl and Public
Health [Book]. - Washington D.C. : Island Press, 2004.
21. Handy, Susan L.; Cao, Xinyu and Mokhtarian, Patricia L. The Causal Influence of
Neighborhood Design on Physical Activity Within the Neighborhood: Evidence from
What Makes a Community Walkable?
62
Chapter 6
Bibliography
Northern California [Journal] // American Journal of Health Promotion. - May/June 2007. No. 5 : Vol. 22. - pp. 350-358.
22. Hoehner, Christine M. [et al.] Perceived and Objective Environmental Measures and
Physical Activity Among Urban Cities [Journal] // American Journal of Preventative
Medicine. - February 2005. - Vol. 28. - pp. 105-116.
23. Humpel, Nancy; Owen, Neville and Leslie, Eva Environmental Factors Associated with
Adults’ Participation in Physical Activity: A Review [Journal] // American Journal of
Preventative Medicine. - [s.l.] : Elsevier, April 2002. - 3 : Vol. 22. - pp. 188-200.
24. King, Abby [et. al.] Perceived Environments as Physical Activity Correlates and Moderators
of Intervention in Five Studies [Journal] // American Journal of Health Promotion. September/October 2006. - No. 1 : Vol. 21. - pp. 24-35.
25. King, Diane Journal of Aging and Physical Activity [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Human Kinetics, Inc.,
2008. - Vol. 16. - pp. 144-170.
26. Lachapelle, Ugo and Frank, Lawrence Transit and Health: Mode of Transport, EmployerSponsored Public Transit Pass Programs, and Physical Activity [Journal] // Journal of Public
Health Policy. - [s.l.] : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. - Vol. 30.
27. Lee, Chanam Environment and Active Living: The Roles of Health Risk and Economic
Factors [Journal] // American Journal of Health Promotion. - [s.l.] : American Journal of
Health Promotion, Inc., March/April 2007. - 4 : Vol. 21. - pp. 293-303.
28. Leyden, Kevin Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable
Neighborhoods [Journal] // American Journal of Public Health. - September 2003. - No. 9 :
Vol. 93. - pp. 1546-1551.
29. Lindstrom, Martin Means of Transportation to Work and Overweight and Obesity: A
Population Based Study in Southern Sweden [Journal] // American Journal of Preventative
Medicine. - [s.l.] : Elsevier, Inc., 2008. - 1 : Vol. 46. - pp. 22-28.
30. Marion County Health Department (MCHD) 2005 Marion County, IN Adult Obesity
Needs Assessment [Report]. - 2006.
31. Moore, Martha T. Walk/Can't Walk: The Way Cities and Suburbs are Developed Could be
Bad for Your Health [Article] // USA Today. - April 23, 2003. - p. 1A.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
63
Chapter 6
Bibliography
32. Morris, Marya Planning Active Communities [Report] : American Planning Association
Planning Advisory Report. - [s.l.] : American Planning Association, 2006. - PAS 545/544.
33. Pikora,Terri [et al.] Developing a Framework for Assessment of the Environmental
Determinants of Walking and Cycling [Journal] // Social Science & Medicine. - 2003. - Vol.
53. - pp. 1693-1703.
34. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone [Book]. - New York, NY : Simon & Schuster, 2000.
35. Saelens, Brian E. and Handy, Susan L. Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review
[Journal] // Medicine & Science In Sports & Exercise. - July 2008. - 7 : Vol. 40. - pp. 550-566.
36. Texas Department of State Health Services Building Healthy Texans [Online] // Texas
Department of State Health Services. - 2005. - April 1, 2008. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wellness/wwt.shtm. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wellness/stagency.shtm.
37. U.S. Department of Transportation National Transportation Statistics [Report] / Research
and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. - [s.l.] : U.S.
Department of Transportation, 2006.
38. USGBC LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System: Public Comment Version 1
[Online] // U.S. Green Building Council. - October 31, 2008. - March 18, 2009. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148.
39. Wang, Guijing and Macera, Caroline A. [et al.] Cost Analysis of the Built Environment:
The Case of Bike and Pedestrian Trails in Lincoln Nebraska [Journal] // American Journal of
Public Health. - April 2004. - No. 4 : Vol.94. - pp. 549-553.
40. Weathers, Tess Mapping the Intersection of Physical Activity & the Built Environment: A
Baseline Profile of Indianapolis [Report]. - 2007.
41. Weir, Lori A.; Etelon, Debra and Brand, Donald A. Parents' Perceptions of Neighborhood
Safety and Children's Physical Activity [Journal] // Journal of Preventative Medicine. - [s.l.] :
Elsevier, 2006. - Vol. 43. - pp. 212-217.
42. Zheng, Yan The Benefit of Public Transportation: Physical Activity to Reduce Obesity and
Ecological Footprint [Journal] // American Journal of Preventative Medicine. - [s.l.] : Elsevier,
Inc., 2008. - 1 : Vol. 46. - pp. 4-5.
What Makes a Community Walkable?
64
Appendix A
HbD Walkability Survey
A PPENDIX A
What Makes a Community Walkable?
65
How Walkable is your Neighborhood?
Instructions: We suggest that you review the questions, then take a walk around your neighborhood with your camera
before completing this questionnaire. Please read each question carefully and answer the questions as best as you can.
In this questionnaire, consider your “neighborhood” to be the area that is bounded by the nearest major streets on all
sides, which you will list below. Complete the questions, then go back at the end and complete the scoring to determine
your neighborhood’s walkability score.
What is your zip code?
In order to define your neighborhood, please fill in the nearest major street in each direction of your residence.
(By major streets, we mean those streets that people who do not live in your neighborhood routinely travel.)
North:
West:
East:
South:
I. Think about the sidewalks or other paved paths in
your neighborhood…
(Check “does not apply” as needed if your neighborhood does not
have sidewalks or paved paths.)
Always
or
usually
About
half the
time
Seldom
or never
Does
not
apply
X 1
NA
X 0
0
NA
X 0
0
Are there sidewalks/paths along the minor/major streets that you listed
above?
Does your neighborhood have sidewalks and/or paved multi-use paths?
Are the sidewalks/paths in good repair, without areas of uneven or broken
pavement?
Are the sidewalks/paths lighted for use at night?
Are the sidewalks/paths wide enough for at least two adults to walk side
by side?
Are there curbs to separate the sidewalk/paths from the street?
Is there a grass strip, trees, parking spaces, or other buffer between the
street and the sidewalk/paths?
Could someone use the sidewalk/paths using a wheelchair, walker,
stroller, or other mobility aide without difficulty?
Are the sidewalk/paths free of items that might block free walking such as
fire hydrants, light poles, signs, etc. in?
Are the sidewalks/paths and the area next to them clear of weeds, brush,
broken glass and unsightly garbage?
Are there any benches or other places to rest along your sidewalk/paths?
Do any of the sidewalks or paths connect to major streets or other
neighborhoods?
Total marks in this column:
Multiplied by points per item:
Sidewalk Walkability points:
X
2
II.
Think about major intersections …
Yes
There is no major
intersection or NA
No
Are there marked crosswalks at major intersections in your neighborhood?
Are there functional crossing signals at major intersections in your
neighborhood?
Is the crossing signal long enough to walk across the entire length at a
comfortable pace?
Total marks in this column:
Multiplied by points per item:
Intersection Walkability points:
III.
X
NA
X 0
0
2
Think about your safety when walking…
X
Yes
2
No
Do you feel safe to walk alone in your neighborhood during the day?
Do you feel safe to walk alone in your neighborhood at night?
Total marks in this column:
Multiplied by points per item:
Safety Walkability points:
IV.
X
2
NA
X 0
0
Think about the places that are within a 10 minute walk of your home...
Are these destinations connected to your home by sidewalks or paved paths? In other
words, would it be possible to get there by walking on a sidewalk or paved path? (Be sure
to answer and score both parts of the question.)
Is this destination within a 10 minute walk
of your home?
Yes
Grocery store / supermarket
Place of worship
Community Center
School or childcare facility
Park or Recreational Facility (including
basketball court, ball field, YMCA, or other
place for recreation – indoors or outdoors)
Restaurant or other places to eat
Retail store or other shopping
Personal services (hair care, nail salon, dry
cleaners, laundry, etc.)
Post office
Bank
Medical clinic
Workplaces such as offices or businesses
Bus stop
Total marks in this column:
Multiplied by points per item:
Destination Walkability points:
X
1
IF YES, is this destination connected to your home
by sidewalks or paved paths?
No
Mostly
connected
NA
X 0
0
X 2
To which of these destinations do you walk most often?
To which of these destinations would you most like to walk, but can’t?
About half
connected
X
1
Mostly not
connected
NA
X 0
0
V.
Are there aspects of your neighborhood that you think make it especially walkable
(assets) or much less walkable (barriers)? If so, we’d love for you to tell us about it in a
few sentences. Adding a photo would be even better!
VI.
Now some questions about you…
Your answers to these questions may help those evaluating your neighborhood’s walkability to learn more
the specific concerns of certain types of residents. For example, elderly citizens may be more concerned
about safety issues, while mothers of young children may be more concerned about crosswalks. Do not
answer any question that you are not comfortable answering.
What is your gender?
Male
Female
What age group best describes you?
0-18
19-29
30-39
40-49
Check all that describe children living with you:
None
Infant
Pre-school age
Which choice best describes your home?
Single-family home Apartment
Would you say in general your health is …
Excellent
Very Good
Good
50-59
60-69
Elementary Age
Condominium
Fair
Do you have a physical condition that affects your ability to walk?
> 70
Teen
Duplex
Other
Poor
Yes
No
When you walk in your neighborhood, what are the reasons you walk (check all that apply)?
Walk my dog
Exercise
Going to bus stop
Going to a specific place (store, post office, etc.)
Visit neighbors
Enjoy the outdoors
Getting out with children
I don’t walk in my neighborhood
How often do you walk in your neighborhood (for any reason)?
Everyday or nearly every day
Rarely
A few times a week
Never
A few times a month
Don’t know / not sure
During the last 7 days, on how many days did you walk in your neighborhood?
Number of DAYS: ___________ (0-7)
Don’t know / not sure
On those days that you walked, how long (in minutes) was your usual walk?
30 minutes or more
Less than 10 minutes
10-19 minutes
20-29 minutes
You’ve completed the questionnaire!
Now it’s time to tally the walkability score for your neighborhood!
To calculate your Neighborhood Walkability Score:
In each series of questions, go back and tally the marks you placed in each column, then multiply by the points shown
there to determine the walkability points for that set of questions. Transfer the sum of total points from the final row of
each set, then divide by the maximum possible points (shown below) to determine a percentage grade.
I.
Question Set
Sidewalks
Responses
Enter the sum of all points in the final row
Divide by the Maximum Possible Points
Enter Points
24
%
Your Percentage Score (round up) is:
II.
Intersections
Enter the sum of all points in the final row
Divide by the Maximum Possible Points
6
%
Your Percentage Score (round up) is:
III.
Safety
Enter the sum of all points in the final row
Divide by the Maximum Possible Points
4
%
Your Percentage Score (round up) is:
IV.
Destinations
Enter the sum of all points in the final row
Divide by the Maximum Possible Points
Your Percentage Score (round up) is:
Overall Walkability Score
39
%
Average the Percentage Scores of the 4
question sets (shaded gray)
If your score is:
¾ 75-100%
You live in a great neighborhood that is very walkable, so go out and take a walk!
¾ 50-75%
Your neighborhood is doing pretty well. Keep walking and seek improvements.
¾ 24-50%
Your neighborhood needs a lot of work. Rally your neighbors and work for change.
¾ 0-25%
Sorry - Your neighborhood is terrible for walking. Tell your leaders you need their help.
Thank you for your participation!
Please send us your completed survey and any picture files by May 22, 2009!
Electronically completed surveys and digital photos can be sent to:
walkable@healthbydesignonline.org
You may fax paper surveys to Kim at (317) 634-7817
We do not need your name for purposes of this survey, but if you would like to be eligible for
prizes, please provide your name when you return the survey.
Appendix B
HbD Walkability Survey: Results
A PPENDIX B
What Makes a Community Walkable?
70
Heath by Design Coalition Walkability Survey
Section I - Physical Condition
57%
59%
Average Physical Condition Walkability Score
Average Total Walkability Score
7%
1 Streets
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
Total
Total
30
8
17
4
59
%
51%
14%
29%
7%
100%
Total
Total
37
8
10
4
59
%
63%
14%
17%
7%
100%
T t l
Total
Total
30
13
7
9
59
%
51%
22%
12%
15%
100%
Total
Total
17
12
22
8
59
%
29%
20%
37%
14%
100%
29%
51%
13%
7%
2 Multi-Used Paths
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
17%
63%
13%
15%
3 Repair
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
4 Lighting
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
12%
22%
51%
14%
29%
37%
20%
19%
5 Width
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
Total
Health by Design - Evaluation Committee
Total
38
7
3
11
59
%
64%
12%
5%
19%
100%
5%
12%
64%
June 2009
Heath by Design Coalition Walkability Survey
15%
6 Curbs
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
Total
Total
38
5
7
9
59
%
64%
8%
12%
15%
100%
Total
Total
21
17
11
10
59
%
36%
29%
19%
17%
100%
12%
9%
64%
17%
7 Buffer
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
19%
29%
35%
17%
8 ADA (wheelchair, etc.)
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
Total
Total
25
17
7
10
59
%
42%
29%
12%
17%
100%
12%
42%
29%
17%
9 Obstructions
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
Total
Total
41
6
2
10
59
%
69%
10%
3%
17%
100%
3%
10%
70%
17%
10 Clean
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
Total
Health by Design - Evaluation Committee
Total
37
10
2
10
59
%
63%
17%
3%
17%
100%
3%
17%
63%
June 2009
Heath by Design Coalition Walkability Survey
19%
2%
11 Places to Rest
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
Total
Total
1
9
38
11
59
%
2%
15%
64%
19%
100%
15%
64%
15%
12 Connected
Always or usually
About half the time
Seldom or never
Does not apply
Total
Health by Design - Evaluation Committee
Total
31
9
10
9
59
%
53%
15%
17%
15%
100%
17%
15%
53%
June 2009
Heath by Design Coalition Walkability Survey
Section II - Safety Features
Average Safety Features Walkability Score
Average Total Walkability Score
1 Crosswalks
Yes
No
* There is no major intersection
** NA
Total
53%
59%
Total
26
29
4
0
59
%
44%
49%
7%
0%
100%
7%
44%
49%
0%
2 Signals
Yes
No
* There is no major intersection
** NA
Total
Total
33
21
4
1
59
%
56%
36%
7%
2%
100%
Total
Total
29
23
4
3
59
%
49%
39%
7%
5%
100%
2%
7%
57%
35%
5%
3 Length of Crosswalk
Yes
No
Th
There
iis no major
j iintersection
t
ti
NA
7%
50%
39%
Scoring Section II:
*/** A "1" is used as both a point value of walkability and in order to distinguish between points earned from either having safety features in a
neighborhood
having
located
i hb h d or h
i no major
j iintersections
t
ti
l t d in
i a neighborhood
i hb h d
*/** If respondent scores "No" for the first two questions and "NA" (or no reply) for the third question, then a "0" is scored for the third question.
*/** If respondent scores a "Does not apply" for the first two questions and "NA" (or no reply) for the third, then a "1" is scored for third question.
Surveys Affected: 4,5,7,8,9,20,21,25,31,34,36,38,51,55
Health by Design - Evaluation Committee
June 2009
Heath by Design Coalition Walkability Survey
Section III - Perceived Safety
Average Perceived Safety Walkability Score
81%
Average Total Walkability Score
59%
1 Safe (day)
Yes
No
Total
Total
58
1
59
%
98%
2%
100%
Total
Total
37
22
59
%
63%
37%
100%
2 Safe (night)
Yes
No
Health by Design - Evaluation Committee
Yes, 58
No, 1
Yes, 37
No, 22
June 2009
Heath by Design Coalition Walkability Survey
Section IV - Destinations
Average Destination Walkability Score
Average Total Walkability Score
1 Grocery Store
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
2 Place of Worship
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
3 Community Center
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
4 School or Childcare
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
5 Park
Yes
N
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
45%
59%
Total
29
30
%
49%
51%
21
1
7
29
72%
3%
24%
Total
44
15
%
75%
25%
31
5
8
44
70%
11%
18%
Total
19
40
%
32%
68%
18
0
1
19
95%
0%
5%
Total
43
16
%
73%
27%
30
3
10
43
70%
7%
23%
Total
40
19
%
68%
32%
30
2
8
40
75%
5%
20%
Health by Design - Evaluation Committee
Yes, 29
24%
No, 30
4%
72%
18%
Yes, 44
11%
70%
No, 15
5%
Yes, 19
No, 40
Yes, 43
N 16
No, 16
95%
23%
70%
7%
Yes, 40
20%
75%
No, 19
5%
June 2009
Heath by Design Coalition Walkability Survey
6 Restaurant
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
40
19
Total
7 Retail
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
8 Personal Services
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
9 Post Office
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
10 Bank
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
Ab t h
About
half
lf connected
t d
Mostly not connected
Total
%
68%
32%
26
5
9
40
65%
13%
23%
Total
38
21
%
64%
36%
23
6
9
38
61%
16%
24%
Total
39
20
%
66%
34%
25
5
9
39
64%
13%
23%
Total
7
52
%
12%
88%
5
2
0
7
71%
29%
0%
Total
32
27
%
54%
46%
24
3
5
32
75%
9%
16%
Health by Design - Evaluation Committee
Yes, 40
65%
23%
No, 19
12%
Yes, 38
60%
24%
N 21
No, 21
16%
64%
Yes
Yes, 39
23%
No, 20
13%
29%
Yes, 7
No, 52
71%
Yes, 32
N 27
No, 27
16%
75%
9%
June 2009
Heath by Design Coalition Walkability Survey
11 Medical
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
12 Workplaces
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
Total
13 Bus Stop
Yes
No
Connected
Mostly connected
About half connected
Mostly not connected
No reply
Total
Total
15
44
%
25%
75%
13
1
1
15
87%
7%
7%
Total
30
29
%
51%
49%
20
2
8
30
67%
7%
27%
Total
38
21
%
64%
36%
22
2
11
3
38
63%
6%
31%
Health by Design - Evaluation Committee
Yes, 15
6%
87%
7%
No, 44
27%
Yes, 30
6%
No, 29
Yes, 38
67%
31%
63%
No, 21
6%
June 2009
Heath by Design Coalition Walkability Survey
Section VI - Demographics
1 Gender
M
F
Total
Total
%
20
34%
39
66%
59
100%
F, 39
M, 20
2 Age Group
Total
%
0-18
0
0%
19-29
14
24%
30-39
17
29%
40-49
14
24%
50-59
7
12%
60-69
6
10%
70
1
2%
59
100%
Total
3 Children
0‐18, 0
14
17
14
7
6
1
Total
(1) None
38
(2) Infant
3
(3) Pre-school age
8
(4) Elementary age
8
(5) Teen
8
Total
None, 38
Infant, 3
Pre‐school, 8
Elementary, 8
65
Teen, 8
4 Housing
Total
%
Single-family
48
81%
Apartment
8
14%
Condoninium
2
3%
Duplex
0
0%
Other
T t l
Total
5 General Health
1
2%
59
100%
Total
%
Excellent
18
31%
Very Good
d
29
49%
Good
10
17%
Fair
2
3%
Poor
0
0%
59
100%
Total
Duplex
0%
Single‐
family
81%
Apartme
nt
14%
Condo
3%
h
Other
2%
Good
17%
Very Good
49%
Fair
3%
Poor
0%
Excellent
31%
Health by Design - Evaluation Committee
June 2009
Heath by Design Coalition Walkability Survey
6 Physical Condition
Yes
No
Total
Total
%
5
8%
54
92%
59
100%
No, 54
Yes, 5
7 Reasons for Walking
Total
% of respondents
(5) Exercise
53
90%
(7) Enjoy outdoors
47
80%
(3) Visit neighbors
31
53%
(6) Specific place
31
53%
(1) Walk the dog
23
39%
(4) Children
14
24%
(2) Bus stop
11
19%
(8) Don't walk
1
2%
Total
Exercise, 53
Enjoy outdoors, 47
Visit neighbors, 31
Specific place, 31
Walk the dog, 23
Children, 14
Bus stop, 11
211
Don't walk, 1
8 Frequency
Total
%
Everyday
20
34%
A few times a week
20
34%
A few times a month
14
24%
Rarely
4
7%
Never
1
2%
Don't know/not sure
Total
0
0%
59
100%
Monthly
24%
Rarely
7%
Never
1%
Weekly
34%
Everyday
34%
9 Days
Average number of days
3.2
Median number of days
3
Don't know/not sure
2
No
answer
8%
10 Length
Total
%
Less than 10 minutes
6
10%
10 19
10-19
18
31%
20-29
12
20%
30 minutes or more
18
31%
No answer
5
8%
59
100%
Total
Health by Design - Evaluation Committee
30
minutes
or more
31%
20-29
20%
Less than
10
minutes
10%
10-19
31%
June 2009
Appendix C
HbD Walkability Survey: Neighborhood Walkability Maps
A PPENDIX C
What Makes a Community Walkable?
81
I-465
SARGENT
I-6
9
CARROLL
CUMBERLAND
SENOUR
600 S
MAZE
I-65
RA
M
P
1050 N
875 W
525 E
300 E
COUNTY LINE
STINEMEYER
SENOUR
THOMPSON
FRYE
STOP 11
CARROLL
DAVIS
ST
ER
N
RIFF
850 W
E
200 S
CARROLL
SH
EL
BY
VI
LL
G
DER
VAN
ACTON
SOUTHPORT
I-65
SHELBY
MITTHOEFER
POST
FRANKLIN
SO
UT
HE
A
FRANKLIN
MC FARLAND
EDGEWOOD
US 40
700 E
THOMPSON
100 N
US 52
HICKORY
FIVE POINTS
HANNA
GERMAN CHURCH
B
RA
M
P
5
TROY
TROY
MA
N
OAKLANDON
I-6
9
HAGUE
SAR
GEN
T
SHADELAN D
04
4
ARLINGTON
FRANKLIN
BI
NF
OR
D
ALBANY
CHU
RCH
TROY
HICKORY
17TH
SHELBY
EMERSON
SHERMAN
KEYSTONE
EAST
EAST
SHERMAN
STATE
CAPITOL
DELAWARE
WEST
MERIDIAN
WEST
BLUFF
I-4
6
MERIDIAN
ILLINOIS
RIVERSIDE
HARDING
PROSPECT
RAYMOND
65TH
62ND 600 N
DIX
MORGANTOWN
SHADELAND
E
DEAN
ALLI
SON
V ILL
CENTRAL
FA
LL
CR
DR A J BROWN
EE
KP
KW
Y
FA
RURAL
LL
CR
EE
KP
KW
Y
KNOLLTON
BELMONT
SR 37
MANN
KEYSTONE
COLLEGE
DITCH
WE
ST
FIE
LD
COOPER
CONCORD
WARMAN
TIBBS
HOLT
LYNHURST
HIGH SCHOOL
LE
MO
ORE
SVIL
PROSPECT
RAWLES
4
I-7
PADDOCK
10TH
IN
MA
200 N
I-70
I-70
79TH 800 N
56TH
E
PIK
ON
T
E
L
46TH
ND
PE
4
I-7
CA
RS
ON
63RD
30TH
ENGLISH
BROO
KV ILL
E
ENGLISH
FOX
79TH
SH
AF
TE
R
WASHINGTON
N
TIO
EC
NN
CO
KE
NT
UC
KY
16TH
PROSPECT
MERIDIAN
MOLLER
HIGH SCHOOL
GIRLS SCHOOL
GRANDVIEW
GUION
MOLLER
I-465
HIGH SCHOOL
GEORGETOWN
REED
DA
ND
YT
RA
IL
COUNTRY CLUB
PAYNE
GEORGETOWN
ZIONSVILLE
M
OO
RE
RACEWAY
RACEWAY
AC
SS
MA 21ST
N
SHERMA
1075 E
S
TT
SE
HU
10TH
RAYMOND
STOP 11 MERIDIAN SCHOOL
RALSTON
34TH
NEW YORK
31
US
RACEWAY
MCCARTY
TS
ET
46TH
82ND
N
COUNTY LINE
US
CH
SA
AS
M
OHIO
TROY
REEK
FALL C
56TH
ISO
MAD
MOORESVILLE
OLIVER
25TH
22ND
SR 135
THOMPSON
MILHOUSE
CAMBY
62ND
52ND
HANNA
HANNA
THOMPSON
KESSLER BLVD
ON
RS
CA
KY
UC
NT
KE
BROAD RIPPLE
IA
IN
RG
VI
MINNESOTA
UNKNOWN
0
US 4
40
US
1050 E
MICHIGAN
82ND
96TH
86TH 900 N
SUNNYSIDE
10TH
35
RA
MP
A
71ST
29TH
DR M L KIN G JR
COS
SEL
L
M
IU
AD
ST
16TH
50
N
AN
MORRIS
UNKNOWN
TE
ROCKVILLE
T
YE
FA
LA
21ST
71ST
I-65
26TH
CRA
WF
OR
DSV
ILLE
I-465 014 RAMP N
100 N
38TH
I-4
6
ER
RIV
0 RAMP
I-465 04
N
56TH
73RD
HIG
MIC
P
RAM
200 N
I-74
62ND
79TH
K
FALL CREE
96TH
IELD
WESTF
020
46TH
I-74
6
AN
I-465
600 N
US
13
E
TLAN
WES
71ST
5
I-6
WILSON
HIG
MIC
86TH
TOWNSHIP LINE
FORD
96TH
96TH
96TH
REA
L
0 - 25%
¯
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
Miles
76 - 100%
HbD Total Walkability Score - Marion County, IN
HbD Walkability Survey - May 2009
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
RES 697
Jason Flora
I-465
SARGENT
I-6
9
CARROLL
CUMBERLAND
SENOUR
600 S
MAZE
I-65
RA
M
P
1050 N
875 W
525 E
300 E
COUNTY LINE
STINEMEYER
SENOUR
THOMPSON
FRYE
STOP 11
CARROLL
DAVIS
ST
ER
N
RIFF
850 W
E
200 S
CARROLL
SH
EL
BY
VI
LL
G
DER
VAN
ACTON
SOUTHPORT
I-65
SHELBY
MITTHOEFER
POST
FRANKLIN
SO
UT
HE
A
FRANKLIN
MC FARLAND
EDGEWOOD
US 40
700 E
THOMPSON
100 N
US 52
HICKORY
FIVE POINTS
HANNA
GERMAN CHURCH
B
RA
M
P
5
TROY
TROY
MA
N
OAKLANDON
I-6
9
HAGUE
SAR
GEN
T
SHADELAN D
04
4
ARLINGTON
FRANKLIN
BI
NF
OR
D
ALBANY
CHU
RCH
TROY
HICKORY
17TH
SHELBY
EMERSON
SHERMAN
KEYSTONE
EAST
EAST
SHERMAN
STATE
CAPITOL
DELAWARE
WEST
MERIDIAN
WEST
BLUFF
I-4
6
MERIDIAN
ILLINOIS
RIVERSIDE
HARDING
PROSPECT
RAYMOND
65TH
62ND 600 N
DIX
MORGANTOWN
SHADELAND
E
DEAN
ALLI
SON
V ILL
CENTRAL
FA
LL
CR
DR A J BROWN
EE
KP
KW
Y
FA
RURAL
LL
CR
EE
KP
KW
Y
KNOLLTON
BELMONT
SR 37
MANN
KEYSTONE
COLLEGE
DITCH
WE
ST
FIE
LD
COOPER
CONCORD
WARMAN
TIBBS
HOLT
LYNHURST
HIGH SCHOOL
LE
MO
ORE
SVIL
PROSPECT
RAWLES
4
I-7
PADDOCK
10TH
IN
MA
200 N
I-70
I-70
79TH 800 N
56TH
E
PIK
ON
T
E
L
46TH
ND
PE
4
I-7
CA
RS
ON
63RD
30TH
ENGLISH
BROO
KV ILL
E
ENGLISH
FOX
79TH
SH
AF
TE
R
WASHINGTON
N
TIO
EC
NN
CO
KE
NT
UC
KY
16TH
PROSPECT
MERIDIAN
MOLLER
HIGH SCHOOL
GIRLS SCHOOL
GRANDVIEW
GUION
MOLLER
I-465
HIGH SCHOOL
GEORGETOWN
REED
DA
ND
YT
RA
IL
COUNTRY CLUB
PAYNE
GEORGETOWN
ZIONSVILLE
M
OO
RE
RACEWAY
RACEWAY
AC
SS
MA 21ST
N
SHERMA
1075 E
S
TT
SE
HU
10TH
RAYMOND
STOP 11 MERIDIAN SCHOOL
RALSTON
34TH
NEW YORK
31
US
RACEWAY
MCCARTY
TS
ET
46TH
82ND
N
COUNTY LINE
US
CH
SA
AS
M
OHIO
TROY
REEK
FALL C
56TH
ISO
MAD
MOORESVILLE
OLIVER
25TH
22ND
SR 135
THOMPSON
MILHOUSE
CAMBY
62ND
52ND
HANNA
HANNA
THOMPSON
KESSLER BLVD
ON
RS
CA
KY
UC
NT
KE
BROAD RIPPLE
IA
IN
RG
VI
MINNESOTA
UNKNOWN
0
US 4
40
US
1050 E
MICHIGAN
82ND
96TH
86TH 900 N
SUNNYSIDE
10TH
35
RA
MP
A
71ST
29TH
DR M L KIN G JR
COS
SEL
L
M
IU
AD
ST
16TH
50
N
AN
MORRIS
UNKNOWN
TE
ROCKVILLE
T
YE
FA
LA
21ST
71ST
I-65
26TH
CRA
WF
OR
DSV
ILLE
I-465 014 RAMP N
100 N
38TH
I-4
6
ER
RIV
0 RAMP
I-465 04
N
56TH
73RD
HIG
MIC
P
RAM
200 N
I-74
62ND
79TH
K
FALL CREE
96TH
IELD
WESTF
020
46TH
I-74
6
AN
I-465
600 N
US
13
E
TLAN
WES
71ST
5
I-6
WILSON
HIG
MIC
86TH
TOWNSHIP LINE
FORD
96TH
96TH
96TH
REA
L
0 - 25%
¯
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
Miles
76 - 100%
HbD Physcial Walkability Score - Marion County, IN
HbD Walkability Survey - May 2009
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
RES 697
Jason Flora
I-465
SARGENT
I-6
9
CARROLL
CUMBERLAND
SENOUR
600 S
MAZE
I-65
RA
M
P
1050 N
875 W
525 E
300 E
COUNTY LINE
STINEMEYER
SENOUR
THOMPSON
FRYE
STOP 11
CARROLL
DAVIS
ST
ER
N
RIFF
850 W
E
200 S
CARROLL
SH
EL
BY
VI
LL
G
DER
VAN
ACTON
SOUTHPORT
I-65
SHELBY
MITTHOEFER
POST
FRANKLIN
SO
UT
HE
A
FRANKLIN
MC FARLAND
EDGEWOOD
US 40
700 E
THOMPSON
100 N
US 52
HICKORY
FIVE POINTS
HANNA
GERMAN CHURCH
B
RA
M
P
5
TROY
TROY
MA
N
OAKLANDON
I-6
9
HAGUE
SAR
GEN
T
SHADELAN D
04
4
ARLINGTON
FRANKLIN
BI
NF
OR
D
ALBANY
CHU
RCH
TROY
HICKORY
17TH
SHELBY
EMERSON
SHERMAN
KEYSTONE
EAST
EAST
SHERMAN
STATE
CAPITOL
DELAWARE
WEST
MERIDIAN
WEST
BLUFF
I-4
6
MERIDIAN
ILLINOIS
RIVERSIDE
HARDING
PROSPECT
RAYMOND
65TH
62ND 600 N
DIX
MORGANTOWN
SHADELAND
E
DEAN
ALLI
SON
V ILL
CENTRAL
FA
LL
CR
DR A J BROWN
EE
KP
KW
Y
FA
RURAL
LL
CR
EE
KP
KW
Y
KNOLLTON
BELMONT
SR 37
MANN
KEYSTONE
COLLEGE
DITCH
WE
ST
FIE
LD
COOPER
CONCORD
WARMAN
TIBBS
HOLT
LYNHURST
HIGH SCHOOL
LE
MO
ORE
SVIL
PROSPECT
RAWLES
4
I-7
PADDOCK
10TH
IN
MA
200 N
I-70
I-70
79TH 800 N
56TH
E
PIK
ON
T
E
L
46TH
ND
PE
4
I-7
CA
RS
ON
63RD
30TH
ENGLISH
BROO
KV ILL
E
ENGLISH
FOX
79TH
SH
AF
TE
R
WASHINGTON
N
TIO
EC
NN
CO
KE
NT
UC
KY
16TH
PROSPECT
MERIDIAN
MOLLER
HIGH SCHOOL
GIRLS SCHOOL
GRANDVIEW
GUION
MOLLER
I-465
HIGH SCHOOL
GEORGETOWN
REED
DA
ND
YT
RA
IL
COUNTRY CLUB
PAYNE
GEORGETOWN
ZIONSVILLE
M
OO
RE
RACEWAY
RACEWAY
AC
SS
MA 21ST
N
SHERMA
1075 E
S
TT
SE
HU
10TH
RAYMOND
STOP 11 MERIDIAN SCHOOL
RALSTON
34TH
NEW YORK
31
US
RACEWAY
MCCARTY
TS
ET
46TH
82ND
N
COUNTY LINE
US
CH
SA
AS
M
OHIO
TROY
REEK
FALL C
56TH
ISO
MAD
MOORESVILLE
OLIVER
25TH
22ND
SR 135
THOMPSON
MILHOUSE
CAMBY
62ND
52ND
HANNA
HANNA
THOMPSON
KESSLER BLVD
ON
RS
CA
KY
UC
NT
KE
BROAD RIPPLE
IA
IN
RG
VI
MINNESOTA
UNKNOWN
0
US 4
40
US
1050 E
MICHIGAN
82ND
96TH
86TH 900 N
SUNNYSIDE
10TH
35
RA
MP
A
71ST
29TH
DR M L KIN G JR
COS
SEL
L
M
IU
AD
ST
16TH
50
N
AN
MORRIS
UNKNOWN
TE
ROCKVILLE
T
YE
FA
LA
21ST
71ST
I-65
26TH
CRA
WF
OR
DSV
ILLE
I-465 014 RAMP N
100 N
38TH
I-4
6
ER
RIV
0 RAMP
I-465 04
N
56TH
73RD
HIG
MIC
P
RAM
200 N
I-74
62ND
79TH
K
FALL CREE
96TH
IELD
WESTF
020
46TH
I-74
6
AN
I-465
600 N
US
13
E
TLAN
WES
71ST
5
I-6
WILSON
HIG
MIC
86TH
TOWNSHIP LINE
FORD
96TH
96TH
96TH
REA
L
0 - 25%
¯
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
Miles
76 - 100%
HbD Safety Features Walkability Score - Marion County, IN
HbD Walkability Survey - May 2009
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
RES 697
Jason Flora
I-465
SARGENT
I-6
9
CARROLL
CUMBERLAND
SENOUR
600 S
MAZE
I-65
RA
M
P
1050 N
875 W
525 E
300 E
COUNTY LINE
STINEMEYER
SENOUR
THOMPSON
FRYE
STOP 11
CARROLL
DAVIS
ST
ER
N
RIFF
850 W
E
200 S
CARROLL
SH
EL
BY
VI
LL
G
DER
VAN
ACTON
SOUTHPORT
I-65
SHELBY
MITTHOEFER
POST
FRANKLIN
SO
UT
HE
A
FRANKLIN
MC FARLAND
EDGEWOOD
US 40
700 E
THOMPSON
100 N
US 52
HICKORY
FIVE POINTS
HANNA
GERMAN CHURCH
B
RA
M
P
5
TROY
TROY
MA
N
OAKLANDON
I-6
9
HAGUE
SAR
GEN
T
SHADELAN D
04
4
ARLINGTON
FRANKLIN
BI
NF
OR
D
ALBANY
CHU
RCH
TROY
HICKORY
17TH
SHELBY
EMERSON
SHERMAN
KEYSTONE
EAST
EAST
SHERMAN
STATE
CAPITOL
DELAWARE
WEST
MERIDIAN
WEST
BLUFF
I-4
6
MERIDIAN
ILLINOIS
RIVERSIDE
HARDING
PROSPECT
RAYMOND
65TH
62ND 600 N
DIX
MORGANTOWN
SHADELAND
E
DEAN
ALLI
SON
V ILL
CENTRAL
FA
LL
CR
DR A J BROWN
EE
KP
KW
Y
FA
RURAL
LL
CR
EE
KP
KW
Y
KNOLLTON
BELMONT
SR 37
MANN
KEYSTONE
COLLEGE
DITCH
WE
ST
FIE
LD
COOPER
CONCORD
WARMAN
TIBBS
HOLT
LYNHURST
HIGH SCHOOL
LE
MO
ORE
SVIL
PROSPECT
RAWLES
4
I-7
PADDOCK
10TH
IN
MA
200 N
I-70
I-70
79TH 800 N
56TH
E
PIK
ON
T
E
L
46TH
ND
PE
4
I-7
CA
RS
ON
63RD
30TH
ENGLISH
BROO
KV ILL
E
ENGLISH
FOX
79TH
SH
AF
TE
R
WASHINGTON
N
TIO
EC
NN
CO
KE
NT
UC
KY
16TH
PROSPECT
MERIDIAN
MOLLER
HIGH SCHOOL
GIRLS SCHOOL
GRANDVIEW
GUION
MOLLER
I-465
HIGH SCHOOL
GEORGETOWN
REED
DA
ND
YT
RA
IL
COUNTRY CLUB
PAYNE
GEORGETOWN
ZIONSVILLE
M
OO
RE
RACEWAY
RACEWAY
AC
SS
MA 21ST
N
SHERMA
1075 E
S
TT
SE
HU
10TH
RAYMOND
STOP 11 MERIDIAN SCHOOL
RALSTON
34TH
NEW YORK
31
US
RACEWAY
MCCARTY
TS
ET
46TH
82ND
N
COUNTY LINE
US
CH
SA
AS
M
OHIO
TROY
REEK
FALL C
56TH
ISO
MAD
MOORESVILLE
OLIVER
25TH
22ND
SR 135
THOMPSON
MILHOUSE
CAMBY
62ND
52ND
HANNA
HANNA
THOMPSON
KESSLER BLVD
ON
RS
CA
KY
UC
NT
KE
BROAD RIPPLE
IA
IN
RG
VI
MINNESOTA
UNKNOWN
0
US 4
40
US
1050 E
MICHIGAN
82ND
96TH
86TH 900 N
SUNNYSIDE
10TH
35
RA
MP
A
71ST
29TH
DR M L KIN G JR
COS
SEL
L
M
IU
AD
ST
16TH
50
N
AN
MORRIS
UNKNOWN
TE
ROCKVILLE
T
YE
FA
LA
21ST
71ST
I-65
26TH
CRA
WF
OR
DSV
ILLE
I-465 014 RAMP N
100 N
38TH
I-4
6
ER
RIV
0 RAMP
I-465 04
N
56TH
73RD
HIG
MIC
P
RAM
200 N
I-74
62ND
79TH
K
FALL CREE
96TH
IELD
WESTF
020
46TH
I-74
6
AN
I-465
600 N
US
13
E
TLAN
WES
71ST
5
I-6
WILSON
HIG
MIC
86TH
TOWNSHIP LINE
FORD
96TH
96TH
96TH
REA
L
0 - 25%
¯
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
Miles
76 - 100%
HbD Perceived Safety Walkability Score - Marion County, IN
HbD Walkability Survey - May 2009
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
RES 697
Jason Flora
I-465
SARGENT
I-6
9
CARROLL
CUMBERLAND
SENOUR
600 S
MAZE
I-65
RA
M
P
1050 N
875 W
525 E
300 E
COUNTY LINE
STINEMEYER
SENOUR
THOMPSON
FRYE
STOP 11
CARROLL
DAVIS
ST
ER
N
RIFF
850 W
E
200 S
CARROLL
SH
EL
BY
VI
LL
G
DER
VAN
ACTON
SOUTHPORT
I-65
SHELBY
MITTHOEFER
POST
FRANKLIN
SO
UT
HE
A
FRANKLIN
MC FARLAND
EDGEWOOD
US 40
700 E
THOMPSON
100 N
US 52
HICKORY
FIVE POINTS
HANNA
GERMAN CHURCH
B
RA
M
P
5
TROY
TROY
MA
N
OAKLANDON
I-6
9
HAGUE
SAR
GEN
T
SHADELAN D
04
4
ARLINGTON
FRANKLIN
BI
NF
OR
D
ALBANY
CHU
RCH
TROY
HICKORY
17TH
SHELBY
EMERSON
SHERMAN
KEYSTONE
EAST
EAST
SHERMAN
STATE
CAPITOL
DELAWARE
WEST
MERIDIAN
WEST
BLUFF
I-4
6
MERIDIAN
ILLINOIS
RIVERSIDE
HARDING
PROSPECT
RAYMOND
65TH
62ND 600 N
DIX
MORGANTOWN
SHADELAND
E
DEAN
ALLI
SON
V ILL
CENTRAL
FA
LL
CR
DR A J BROWN
EE
KP
KW
Y
FA
RURAL
LL
CR
EE
KP
KW
Y
KNOLLTON
BELMONT
SR 37
MANN
KEYSTONE
COLLEGE
DITCH
WE
ST
FIE
LD
COOPER
CONCORD
WARMAN
TIBBS
HOLT
LYNHURST
HIGH SCHOOL
LE
MO
ORE
SVIL
PROSPECT
RAWLES
4
I-7
PADDOCK
10TH
IN
MA
200 N
I-70
I-70
79TH 800 N
56TH
E
PIK
ON
T
E
L
46TH
ND
PE
4
I-7
CA
RS
ON
63RD
30TH
ENGLISH
BROO
KV ILL
E
ENGLISH
FOX
79TH
SH
AF
TE
R
WASHINGTON
N
TIO
EC
NN
CO
KE
NT
UC
KY
16TH
PROSPECT
MERIDIAN
MOLLER
HIGH SCHOOL
GIRLS SCHOOL
GRANDVIEW
GUION
MOLLER
I-465
HIGH SCHOOL
GEORGETOWN
REED
DA
ND
YT
RA
IL
COUNTRY CLUB
PAYNE
GEORGETOWN
ZIONSVILLE
M
OO
RE
RACEWAY
RACEWAY
AC
SS
MA 21ST
N
SHERMA
1075 E
S
TT
SE
HU
10TH
RAYMOND
STOP 11 MERIDIAN SCHOOL
RALSTON
34TH
NEW YORK
31
US
RACEWAY
MCCARTY
TS
ET
46TH
82ND
N
COUNTY LINE
US
CH
SA
AS
M
OHIO
TROY
REEK
FALL C
56TH
ISO
MAD
MOORESVILLE
OLIVER
25TH
22ND
SR 135
THOMPSON
MILHOUSE
CAMBY
62ND
52ND
HANNA
HANNA
THOMPSON
KESSLER BLVD
ON
RS
CA
KY
UC
NT
KE
BROAD RIPPLE
IA
IN
RG
VI
MINNESOTA
UNKNOWN
0
US 4
40
US
1050 E
MICHIGAN
82ND
96TH
86TH 900 N
SUNNYSIDE
10TH
35
RA
MP
A
71ST
29TH
DR M L KIN G JR
COS
SEL
L
M
IU
AD
ST
16TH
50
N
AN
MORRIS
UNKNOWN
TE
ROCKVILLE
T
YE
FA
LA
21ST
71ST
I-65
26TH
CRA
WF
OR
DSV
ILLE
I-465 014 RAMP N
100 N
38TH
I-4
6
ER
RIV
0 RAMP
I-465 04
N
56TH
73RD
HIG
MIC
P
RAM
200 N
I-74
62ND
79TH
K
FALL CREE
96TH
IELD
WESTF
020
46TH
I-74
6
AN
I-465
600 N
US
13
E
TLAN
WES
71ST
5
I-6
WILSON
HIG
MIC
86TH
TOWNSHIP LINE
FORD
96TH
96TH
96TH
REA
L
0 - 25%
¯
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
Miles
76 - 100%
HbD Destination Walkability Score - Marion County, IN
HbD Walkability Survey - May 2009
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey 2009
What Makes a Community Walkable?
RES 697
Jason Flora
81
92
62
75
19
67
42
44
50
43
25
58
43
70
67
86
72
46
58
82
13
0 - 25%
26 - 50%
43
51 - 75%
¯
76 - 100%
Unknown
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
Miles34
HbD Total Walkability Score by Zip Code
HbD Walkability Survey - May 2009
Source: Health by Design Walkability Survey 2009
86
What Makes a Community Walkable?
Ball State University
Jason Flora
Appendix D
ACSM American Fitness Index: 2009 Indianapolis Profile
A PPENDIX D
What Makes a Community Walkable?
88
INDIANAPOLIS, IN
(Indianapolis-Carmel-Metro Area, IN MSA)
COUNTIES
Boone, Brown, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Marion, Morgan, Putnam, Shelby
Ranking: Total Score = 39.3; Rank = 36
STRENGTHS/ADVANTAGES
• Higher level of state requirement
for Physical Education classes
• More golf courses per capita
OPPORTUNITIES/CHALLENGES
• Higher percent currently smoking
• Lower percent of city land area as parkland
• Fewer acres of parkland per capita
• Lower percent using public transportation to work
• Fewer ball diamonds per capita
• Fewer park playgrounds per capita
• Fewer recreation centers per capita
• Fewer tennis courts per capita
• Higher percent with asthma
• Higher percent with angina or coronary heart disease
• Fewer farmers’ markets per capita
• Lower percent bicycling or walking to work
• Fewer dog parks per capita
• Fewer park units per capita
• Fewer swimming pools per capita
• Lower park-related expenditures per capita
DESCRIPTION OF INDIANAPOLIS-CARMEL-METRO AREA, IN MSA
Population
Indianapolis MSA
U.S. Value
MSA Average
MSA Range
1,695,037
301,290,332
3,254,681
1,030,495 – 18,815,988
Percent less than 18 years old
26.7%
24.5%
24.9%
20.7% – 29.5%
Percent 18 to 64 years old
62.7%
62.9%
63.6%
60.9% – 66.7%
Percent 65 years old and older
10.5%
12.6%
11.5%
7.4% – 17.2%
Percent male
49.0%
49.3%
49.2%
48.0% – 51.3%
Percent high school graduate or higher
87.4%
84.5%
86.2%
77.0% – 92.5%
Percent White
79.8%
73.9%
72.0%
50.1% – 88.7%
Percent Black or African American
14.2%
12.4%
14.1%
1.4% – 45.4%
Percent Asian
1.8%
4.4%
5.0%
1.0% – 29.5%
Percent Other Race
4.3%
9.3%
8.5%
1.8% – 26.8%
Percent Hispanic/Latino
4.6%
15.1%
14.4%
1.1% – 52.6%
Percent unemployed
5.7%
6.3%
6.1%
3.9% – 10.7%
Median household income
$53,101
$50,740
$55,940
$44,843 – $83,793
Percent of households below poverty level
7.8%
9.5%
8.3%
4.4% – 15.1%
Violent crime rate/100,000*
652.1
Percent with disability
13.6%
15.0%
13.7%
9.8% – 19.2%
*Due to differences in jurisdictional definitions and reporting, the FBI recommends that these rates not be compared across areas.
42
ACSM AMERICAN FITNESS INDEX™ COMPONENTS
Personal Health Indicators – Score = 41.6; Rank = 34
Indianapolis MSA
U.S. Value
MSA Average
MSA Range
Health Behaviors
Percent any physical activity or exercise in the last 30 days
76.3%
77.4%
77.7%
67.8% – 85.4%
Percent physically active at least moderately
48.7%
49.5%
49.0%
39.5% – 55.7%
Percent eating 5+ fruits/vegetables per day
25.5%
24.4%
25.5%
17.1% – 36.2%
Percent currently smoking
22.8%
19.8%
18.7%
12.5% – 25.4%
Percent obese
27.3%
26.3%
25.4%
14.7% – 34.8%
Percent in excellent or very good health
57.4%
54.2%
55.6%
47.1% – 64.2%
32.5%
35.3%
34.4%
28.7% – 39.3%
Chronic Health Problems
Any days when physical health
was not good during the past 30 days
Any days when mental health
35.6%
33.7%
34.2%
23.4% – 42.0%
Percent with asthma
was not good during the past 30 days
9.5%
8.4%
8.2%
4.9% – 12.0%
Percent with angina or coronary heart disease
4.8%
4.1%
3.8%
1.8% – 5.2%
Percent with diabetes
7.8%
8.0%
8.0%
5.1% – 11.0%
Death rate/100,000 for cardiovascular disease
237.9
229.6
223.0
151.2 – 308.2
Death rate/100,000 for diabetes
23.8
24.6
24.0
13.2 – 37.9
86.9%
85.8%
86.4%
76.4% – 94.1%
Health Care
Percent with health insurance
Community/Environmental Indicators – Score = 37.0; Rank = 35
(note: most of these data were available only for the main city in the MSA)
Indianapolis
MSA Average
Range of all Cities
Parkland as a percent of city land area
4.8%
10.6%
2.6% – 21.9%
Acres of parkland/1,000
14.2
18.7
3.4 – 130.6
Farmers’ markets/1,000,000
8.3
11.0
0.3 – 33.2
Built Environment
Percent using public transportation to work
0.8%
4.2%
0.5% – 30.2%
Percent bicycling or walking to work
1.7%
2.7%
1.0% – 6.7%
Ball diamonds/10,000
0.8
1.8
0.0 – 5.3
Dog parks/10,000
0.4
0.8
0.0 – 5.8
Park playgrounds/10,000
1.7
2.2
0.9 – 4.9
Golf courses/100,000
1.8
0.9
0.0 – 2.4
Park units/10,000
2.5
4.1
1.3 – 11.0
Recreation centers/20,000
0.6
1.0
0.1 – 2.6
Swimming pools/100,000
2.8
3.2
0.2 – 12.3
Tennis courts/10,000
1.5
2.0
0.6 – 4.9
$47
$97
$10 – $268
3
2.5
0–3
123.8
124.4
70.0 – 201.6
Recreational Facilities
Park-related expenditures per capita
Level of state requirement for Physical Education classes**
Number of primary health care providers per 100,000
**3 = required at three levels: high school, middle school and elementary school; 2= required at two levels; 1= required at only one level
43