Examination of Instruments Used to Measure the Built ...chp.ahslabs.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/... · Final Report James Rimmer, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Jennifer Gray-Stanley,

Examination of Instruments Used to Measure the Built Environment and

Physical Activity

Universal Design & Health Promotion

Final Report

James Rimmer, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Jennifer Gray-Stanley, Ph.D., Project Coordinator

Brittany Haugen, B.S., Graduate Assistant

University of Illinois at Chicago Department of Disability and Human Development

Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities,

Disability and Health, Grant # 5U59DD522742

Examination of Built Environment Instruments Addressing Health Promoting Behaviors

2

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 7

AIMS...................................................................................................................................... 8 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 9

Definitions and Search Strategy............................................................................................ 9 Analytic Strategy: Content Review of Instruments .............................................................. 10

Analytic Strategy: Instrument Review ................................................................................ 11 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 12

Content Review ................................................................................................................. 12 Built Environment Infrastucture..................................................................................... 12

Walkability ................................................................................................................... 17 Bikeability .................................................................................................................... 24 Recreation Sites and Structures...................................................................................... 28

Instrument Review............................................................................................................. 32

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 32 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 37 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 39

Figures 1: Built Environment Infrastructure Content Overlap...................................................... 15 2: Walkability Content Overlap ..................................................................................... 20 3: Bikeability Content Overlap ...................................................................................... 26

4: Recreational Sites and Structures Content Overlap ..................................................... 30 APPENDICES

Tables

A.1: Built Environment Infrastructure Domain Summary ............................................... 40 A.2: Walkability Domain Summary ............................................................................... 48 A.3: Bikeability Domain Summary ................................................................................ 56 A.4: Recreation Sites and Structures Domain Summary.................................................. 61

B.1: Built Environment Infrastructure Detailed Table ..................................................... 66 B.2: Walkability Detailed Table..................................................................................... 74 B.3: Bikeability Detailed Table ...................................................................................... 85 B.4: Recreation Sites and Structures Detailed Table ....................................................... 93

C: Instrument Review.................................................................................................... 99 D: Glossary................................................................................................................. 134


3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We conducted a comprehensive content review to identify community-based instruments

that measure the following four domains: Built Environment Infrastructure, Walkability,

Bikeability, and Recreational Sites and Structures. Across the reviewed instruments, we sought

to assess the subject domain content overlap, the proportion of objective and subjective

measures, and their universal design focus and capability. We identified citations based on

literature searches, review articles, and professional contacts, and arrived at a final sample of 81

instruments. Instruments included environmental audits and perceived environmental measures

of general built environment features affecting physical activity (e.g., intersections, crosswalks),

as well as walkability, bikeability, and recreational sites and structures. Instruments measuring

transportation and accessibility for people with disabilities were also included. We excluded

measures focusing solely on behavioral or physiological measurements related to physical

activity.

Subject domains with higher content overlap included the presence/absence of built

environment features, aesthetics and amenities, and traffic control features. Domains

demonstrating lower content overlap included accessibility, safety education, and policies and

plans. For example, fewer instruments focused on the accessibility of parking, transportation,

walking and bicycling paths, recreation facilities, pool, and parks. More instruments incorporated

questions about the presence or absence of facilities/structures within a geographical space, the

pleasantness of the surrounding environment, availability of structures (e.g., benches, bicycle

racks) to support the use of the facility, and traffic control.

In some cases, the term accessibility referred to access for the general population rather

than specifically for people with disabilities or other sub-population groups. Surface materials


4

(e.g., a path surface made of asphalt, concrete, or wood planks) and path obstructions, which can

contribute to accessibility problems, for wheelchair users and/or individuals with balance

problems, were also present in a lower proportion of the instruments we reviewed.

While a higher proportion of instruments refer to safety within the context of walking

environments (e.g., perceptions of safety due to traffic or crime), or intersection or crosswalk

signals, fewer instruments covered safety education and safety assessments. This included such

items as safety classes, regular safety patrol, and safety analysis, which involves an inspection of

areas where crime and/or traffic-related injuries are prevalent.

In general, few built environment instruments included a policy or planning component

with respect to the built environment infrastructure, walkability, bikeability, or the recreational

environment. Existing examples include whether capital facilities plans incorporate funding for

adding sidewalks, trails, and bicycle lanes within the broader transportation plan, or whether

policies include bicyclists in new road construction and reconstruction/resurfacing. More

instruments could inquire about whether public transportation routes will connect to walking and

bicycle paths, and include ramps and lifts making them accessible to wheelchair users.

Instrument planning sections should also include the preferable walking and bicycling path

materials and the slope/incline that meet the needs of all users in a community, including people

with disabilities.

We also examined the objectivity/subjectivity of instruments and items to gauge if

information is collected with self-report (i.e., perceived) or objective measures according to sub-

domain. In general, the presence or absence of facilities, facility dimensions, and existence of

policies and plans were defined with objectively-worded items. Subject domains related to

safety, facility condition and maintenance, accessibility, and aesthetics were more likely


5

measured with subjectively-worded items. While subjectively-worded items are necessary to

provide valuable personal perspectives, objectively-worded items introduce less inter-rater

reliability problems.

The measurement of some sub-domains might be expanded by adopting a greater

proportion of objectively- or subjectively-worded items. For example, safety items may focus on

what objective features (e.g., street lighting, call boxes) might limit crime in an area.

Alternatively, other sub-domains may include more subjective perspectives, such as what are the

most enjoyable or useful features (e.g., walking paths, parks) in the environment for specific

populations.

Our analysis indicates a greater need for comprehensive instruments that cut across

several content domains (e.g., built environment infrastructure, walkability, bikeability,

recreation sites and structures) and include questions related to policies and planning,

accessibility, and safety education. In particular, our findings revealed that the accessibility

needs of people with disabilities were not addressed in most of the instruments we examined.

Rather than develop more disability-specific instruments, we encourage the development of

universally-designed measures that incorporate items related to all populations and communities.

Subject domains which currently include some universal design focus (i.e., features

which are accessible to every user) are the accessibility of walking and bicycling paths,

transportation, and parking, obstructions, slope/cross-slope, and feature condition and

maintenance. We recommend that the universal design focus be expanded in select sub-domains.

For example, a greater proportion of instruments might include items about walking that relate to

rollers (i.e., people who use scooters or wheelchairs). Items about street crossing speed,

especially important for people with mobility limitations who require a much slower walking


6

speed, could be adapted with slight modifications to the question or sub-domain. Flashing

crosswalk devices should be accompanied with audio devices to accommodate people with

visual impairments. Moreover, instruments may inquire whether pedestrian crossing/refuge

islands (with or without gates) can accommodate rollers. Bicycling resources can also relate to

people with disabilities by including items that are accessible for all users, such as accessible

water fountains, bathrooms, benches, and signage for motorists or bicyclists using adapted

bicycles. In general, more instruments can include items about whether people of all abilities feel

that they can easily connect to their communities, such as through public transportation access of

walking and bicycling paths, and recreational settings.

Future recommendations include the following: (1) Instruments should be developed with

a universal design, rather than disability-specific focus, to incorporate items inclusive for all

populations and communities, including people with disabilities. (2) Instrument terminology

should be standardized to the greatest extent possible. Currently, items from specific sub-

domains utilize different terminology, sometimes referring to the same underlying constructs.

Agreement on terminology would help ensure the same concepts are being measured across

different settings. (3) Future work should explore the potential utility of computer-adapted

instruments (CAT) of the built environment. While many built environment instruments

currently incorporate a comprehensive battery of items, CAT can be used to assess the same

environment with a limited number of items. From a comprehensive item bank that includes a

broad array of built environment measures, modules or item subsets can be available for many

uses. For example, if a researcher or community group is interested in specifically measuring

curb cuts and crosswalks, or walking path features for individuals with mobility limitations, CAT

would provide a composite set of items tailored for that purpose. Furthermore, with computer


7

technology, such tailored instrumentation can be easily administered in community settings, such

as with the help of PDAs, cell phones, or laptop computers. Data can be downloaded and scored

in real time, and the user can be sent a composite score and recommendations for that component

of the built environment.

BACKGROUND

Though physical inactivity has been shown to be a leading cause of mortality and

morbidity,1 less than 50 percent of the adult U.S. population engages in the recommended levels

of physical activity.2 Researchers continue to search for answers as to why the majority of

Americans are not engaging in regular physical activity.3 Limitations in the biological,

psychological, and behavioral explanations of the low rate of physical activity in the U.S.

population have led to the physical environment as an additional area of examination. This

includes the presence of accessible walking and bicycle paths, options for community recreation,

transportation systems, and other urban design characteristics.4-6

Healthy communities provide supportive physical and social environments which

contribute to a higher quality of life.7 These environments are based on urban design features that

provide residents with healthy, safe, and accessible choices for activity and engagement. Positive

determinants of community physical activity, for example, have been shown to include the

presence of sidewalks and parks, aesthetically-pleasing environments, adequate street lighting,

and environmental safety.8, 9

Urban design qualities can affect pedestrian and bicyclist safety in

terms of controls on traffic speed, crosswalks and pedestrian traffic signals, and other design

measures that help protect pedestrians and bicyclists from motorists.10

Such healthy communities

may also integrate design features that make it possible for people with disabilities to be active

within their environments. These include curb cuts and ramps, accessible pedestrian


8

signalization, and accessible transportation. Universal design incorporates these inclusive design

features, allowing for use across multiple user groups, such as people with disabilities, older

adults, and the general population.11

An increased awareness of the effect of healthy communities and the environment on

activity level has contributed to a proliferation of instruments measuring these features and

effects.4 A need exists, however, to compare instruments across content areas, and to consider

their universal design implications.

AIMS

In this report, we present a content review of instruments which measure the built

environment with respect to community physical activity. Considering the growing number of

instruments in this area, they must be cataloged for future synthesis and use. Such synthesis may

be useful for a variety of audiences, including consumers, professionals, and advocates in the

areas of public health, transportation, and urban design and planning. We end with

recommendations concerning subject domain areas needing further attention as new instruments

are developed.

Our study objectives were two-fold. First, we sought to identify overlap of subject

domain areas across the designated built environment instruments. Our main subject domain

areas included (1) the Built Environment Infrastructure ; (2) Walkability; (3) Bikeability; and

(4) Recreational Sites and Structures . Survey items were catalogued within each of these

subject domains and sub-domain, and were evaluated based on their universal design features.

Second, we conducted a review of each of the included instruments, including information on

instrument purpose and psychometrics.

METHODS

Definitions and Search Strategies

Built Environment Definition: In this study, we have defined built environment as a

community’s urban design, transportation, and recreational options within a geographical space,

which may affect individuals’ physical activity level.5, 6, 9

This includes, but is not limited to,

land use, street and sidewalk/path networks, and aesthetics. We added recreational areas and

policy and planning as additional dimensions of built environment development in a community.

Search Strategy and Exclusion and Inclusion Criteria: We focused on environmental

audits and perceived environmental measures of walkability and bikeability, recreational

structures, and general built environment features affecting physical activity, such as roads,

intersections, crosswalk, etc. Instruments specific to transportation and accessibility for people

with disabilities were also examined in order to identify other dimensions of the built

environment that aren’t normally considered in mainstream instruments. We excluded

instruments which focused specifically on behavioral or physiological measurements related to

physical activity in a geographical space (e.g., time spent exercising, or heart rate during

exercise).

We arrived at our final sample of 81 instruments in the following manner. Approximately

1859 citations were initially identified based on literature searches, review articles, and

professional contacts. Databases included Medline, Ovid Social Sciences databases, Web of

Science Citation database, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Google Scholar. Key words

used were measurement, instrument, assessment, tool, environment, environmental determinant,

physical environment, built environment, physical activity, exercise, health promotion,

walkability, and bikeability. From this initial pool, we reduced our sample to approximately 141


10

citations, retaining only those with a complete instrument. These instruments were reviewed in

further depth, and we ultimately retained 81: those meeting the above inclusion criteria, which

included instruments measuring some aspect of the built environment.

Definitions of Subject Domains & Sub-Domain Areas: (1) The subject domain of Built

Environment Infrastructure includes features fundamental to built environment inquiry, with

sub-domains including roads (e.g., type, materials, condition, dimensions), curb cuts and ramps

(e.g., dimensions and accessibility), intersections and crosswalks (e.g., features, signs, and

signals), and transportation and parking availability and accessibility. (2) Walkability refers to

the friendliness of an area for walking and contains sub-domains related to the sidewalk/path

(e.g., presence/absence, dimensions, materials, condition, accessibility) as well as walking safety,

education, policies and planning, and walking area aesthetics. (3) Bikeability is the

resourcefulness of an area for bicycling, with sub-domains associated with bicycling paths (e.g.,

presence/absence, dimensions, materials, condition, accessibility), as well as bicycling

promotion, education, and safety. (4) Recreational Sites and Structures refer to recreation

areas, fitness centers, pools, and parks within a community. Sub-domains include accessibility,

policies and planning, and safety. Specific definitions for each subject domain and sub-domain

can be found in the glossary.

Analysis Strategy: Content Review of Instruments

Survey items from each of the instruments were systematically cataloged in spreadsheets

according to the broader subject domain areas of Built Environment Infrastructure ,

Walkability, Bikeability, and Recreational Sites and Structures . For each of the sub-domains

(e.g., sidewalk/path width) within each domain, instruments were cataloged to determine (1) the

subject domain content overlap or proportion of instruments devoted to each sub-domain area;


11

(2) whether the identified items could be classified as objective or subjective items; and (3) the

universal design relevance. (See Tables A.1-4, and B.1-4).

We measured whether items have an objective or subjective focus to examine if

information is collected with perceived or objective measures, according to sub-domain. Items

with an objective focus have qualities that can be universally measured or identified by the

untrained or trained user (e.g., the presence/absence of a path/sidewalk or a choice of

sidewalk/path materials such as gravel, concrete, asphalt, etc.). Such items can improve inter-

rater reliability. Items with a subjective focus possess qualities heavily dependent on the user’s

perception and experience and may limit the potential for a uniform measurement tool across

users (e.g., perceptions of safety or environment aesthetics).4

Survey items were also examined with respect to universal design. Suggestions for

adaptations, which can make existing items more accessible not only by people with disabilities,

but other users (e.g., bicyclists or motorists) are included in the Discussion section.

Analysis Strategy: Instrument Review

In addition to the content review, we also conducted an instrument review. (See Table C).

This included an examination of instrument purpose, intended user, geographical scale, universal

design qualities, instrument development literature, and psychometric information. Intended user

is defined as the untrained consumer or the trained professional (e.g., professional planner,

professional transportation engineer, or researcher) expected to utilize the instrument.

Geographical scale describes the specific geographical parameters or other space (e.g.,

community) for which the instrument was developed. Universal design qualities refers to

whether the instrument measures or can measure universal design for multiple user groups,

including people with disabilities and the general population. Instrument development literature


12

provides research citations on the design and development of the instrument or its subsequent

use. Psychometric properties include information on reliability and validity, as well as instrument

development and theory. Any other relevant information, including the instrument website, is

provided in the notes section.

RESULTS

Results have been organized according to the two-fold purpose identified in the study

design section above, that being a content review of subject domain overlap across instruments ,

and a broader instrument review.

Content Review

Subject domain overlap is reflected in a series of tables for the four major areas of Built

Environment Infrastructure; Walkability; Bikeability; and Recreational Sites and Structures.

Tables A.1-4 are grids which show what instruments include items specific to the domains and

sub-domains. Tables B.1-4 provide additional detail, showing the proportion of instruments

devoted to each subject domain; whether the identified survey items have an objective or

subjective focus; whether items have universal design relevance; and sample items from each

sub-domain.

Built Environment Infrastructure

The Built Environment Infrastructure domain includes 22 sub-domains which are

illustrated in Figure 1. These sub-domains fall under the content areas of roads, curb cuts/ramps,

intersections/crosswalks, traffic control, transportation, parking, and policy and planning.

The sub-domain of roads includes road type, number of traffic lanes, alignment and

configuration, road materials, slope/terrain, width, and condition. Definitions are included in the

Glossary, Table D. Specifically, road type refers to whether a street/road has been designed for


13

interstate, urban, or rural uses. The number of lanes in a road/street is also specified. Alignment

is defined as how a road fits to its landscape, through straight and curvy sections, and

configuration of whether the road/street is divided, undivided, or one-way. Road materials

describe the road surface, such as concrete, asphalt, gravel, etc., and road condition, the current

state of road maintenance and surface quality (e.g., smoothness or bumps, cracks, holes, etc.).

Slope/terrain refers to whether the road slope or grade is measurable, or can be categorized as

mountainous, hilly, flat terrain, etc., and road width, the measurable width.

Sub-domain areas of curb cuts/ramps include availability and dimensions. Availability

refers to the presence of curb cuts or ramps in a specific geographic area, and dimensions, the

specific curb cut/ramp measurements.

Intersections/crosswalk sub-domains include the type and number of intersections,

availability, signage and signals, features, and timing. Intersection type refers to whether an

intersection might be defined as a four-way, t-intersection, or other type of intersection, and

intersection number pertains to the number of intersections in a specific geographic area.

Crosswalk signage and signals are the pedestrian devices which serve as crossing aids.

Crosswalk features relate to aspects sometimes associated with a crosswalk, such as a crossing

island. Crosswalk timing refers to the time allowed for pedestrians to cross at intersections and

whether it is perceived as adequate for crossing.

Sub-domains of traffic control include traffic volume/density, speed limit, and vehicle

traffic control. Traffic volume/density refers to the average traffic volume or volume during a

specific time period. Speed limit includes the posted speed limit on a specific road, or the

perceived speed of traffic. Vehicle traffic control refers to devices used to slow or restrict traffic

flow through an area (e.g., roundabouts, speed humps, chicanes, chokers, traffic signals, etc.)


14

Sub-domains of transportation and parking include the availability and accessibility of

these features in a specific geographic area. Available transportation is a community’s public

transportation options, and available parking, whether there are both on and off-street spaces, or

parking lot spaces. Accessibility refers to whether there are adaptations for people with

disabilities, and in some cases, the convenience of these features for the general population.

Sub-domains of built environment policy and planning include policies, plans, and

dedicated funds to develop a community’s infrastructure related to roads, intersections,

crosswalks, traffic flow, public transportation, and parking. This could include design standards

for the number and width of automobile travel lanes, wide shoulders, and parking lanes, for

example.

Subject domain content overlap: To calculate the subject domain overlap for each

domain and sub-domain, we counted the number of instruments with items in that area and

divided this by the total number of relevant instruments. Because the Built Environment

Infrastructure sub-domains (e.g., road, curb cuts/ramps, and intersection features) are

fundamental to built environment measurement, we included all 81 reviewed instruments as the

denominator for this subject domain.

For each of the sub-domains, content overlap is discussed as being at high, medium, and

low levels. Specifically for the built environment infrastructure domain area, a high proportion of

overlap is 21-30% of instruments containing items in that area, a medium proportion of overlap

is 11-20% of instruments, and a low proportion of overlap is 1-10% of instruments. More

detailed information about this content overlap can be found in Tables A.1 and B.1.

Figure 1: Built Environment Infrastructure Content Overlap


15

High content overlap (21-30% instruments): Sub-domains with a high proportion of

content overlap included crosswalk signage and signalization, traffic density and speed, and

parking availability. Specifically, 30% of instruments contained items about crosswalk signage

and signals, 28% about traffic volume density, and 22% on speed limit. Additionally, 26% of

instruments contained items about parking availability.


16

Medium content overlap (11-20% instruments): Sub-domains with a medium proportion

of content overlap included the availability or presence of built environment features, dimensions

of these features, and vehicle traffic control. For example, 20% of the instruments contained

items about the availability of curb cuts/curb ramps, 19% about the presence of crosswalks, and

16% on the availability of public transportation options. Fifteen percent (15%) of instruments

included items about crosswalk features, such as pedestrian crossing islands, and 12% about road

width. Additionally, 11% of instruments included items related to vehicle traffic control, such as

ramps or speed humps which purposely slow traffic.

Low content overlap (1-10% instruments): Sub-domains with a low proportion of content

overlap included dimensions of built environment features, such as parking and transportation

accessibility, and policy and planning. Such dimensions included road alignment and

configuration (10% of instruments), road type (7%), road condition (7%), road slope/terrain

(5%), and road materials (2%). Dimensions related to curb cuts/ramps (7%) and intersection type

(7%) also demonstrated a low proportion of overlap. Furthermore, instruments with items related

to transportation accessibility included 9% of the instruments, and parking accessibility, 7% of

the instruments. Only 2% of instruments covered the sub-domain of built environment policy and

planning.

Objective-subjective item focus: Objectively-worded items can be universally measured

or identified by the untrained or trained user, whereas subjectively-worded items are based on

the user’s perceptions and experience. Sub-domains with a greater proportion of objectively-

worded items included road dimensions (e.g., road type, number of lanes, road materials, and

road width); the presence and dimensions of curb cuts/ramps (e.g., curb ramp slope); the

intersection and crosswalk presence and features (e.g., marked crosswalk, intersection type); and


17

the existence of policies and plans related to built environment infrastructure. Sub-domains with

a greater proportion of subjectively-worded items included perceptions of road condition and

crosswalk timing.

Universal design focus: Sub-domains applicable to people with disabilities included the

curb cut/ramp presence and dimensions; crosswalk signs and signals; some crosswalk features

(e.g., crossing islands); crosswalk timing; and transportation and parking accessibility. Certainly

the availability of curb cuts and having adequate time to cross the street may be beneficial not

only for individuals with mobility disabilities, but also for older adults, parents pushing baby

strollers, and the general population. Greater accessibility of crosswalk signs and signals at a

crosswalk, for example, may affect whether or not individuals with visual or auditory

impairments can safely cross that intersection.

Walkability

The subject domain area of Walkability includes 22 sub-domains which can be viewed in

Figure 2. These sub-domains fall under the areas of sidewalk/path features, walking safety,

pedestrian volume/speed, walking policies and planning, aesthetics and amenities, and other

features.

Sidewalk features include the sub-domains of sidewalk/path presence, accessibility,

materials, condition and maintenance, trip/slipping hazards, obstructions, width, length, and

slope, and continuity and connectivity. Again, definitions for these terms can be found in the

Glossary, Table D.

Sidewalk/path presence refers to the absence or presence of sidewalk or path. While

sidewalk/path accessibility generally pertains to accessibility for people with disabilities (e.g.,


18

wheelchair users), in some instances it can refer to accessibility for the general population such

as during specific seasons (e.g., winter).

Sidewalk/path materials include the type of materials used in sidewalk or path

construction (e.g., asphalt, dirt, grass), and sidewalk/path condition and maintenance about

current state and regular cleaning, repair, and maintenance of sidewalk/path surfaces.

Trip/slipping hazards refer to whether or not the sidewalk/path surface and/or condition

contributes to perceived trip and/or slipping hazards. Sidewalk/path obstructions are the

permanent or temporary obstacles blocking the sidewalk/path.

Sidewalk/path width, length, and slope pertain to specific measurable dimensions, and

sidewalk/path continuity refers to whether it leads to a destination, without gaps in that

trajectory. Sidewalk/path connectivity is the extent to which sidewalks/paths permit or restrict

movement to different sidewalks/paths, public transportation, and/or other destinations

throughout the community.

Walking safety includes the sub-domains of walking safety due to crime or traffic; the

buffer between the sidewalk/path and road; and safe routes, rules, and education. Walking safety

related to crime may include perceptions of crime or lack of crime deterrents (e.g., adequate

lighting, emergency call boxes). Walking safety related to traffic refers to pedestrian safety

issues due to heavy traffic flow, unsafe intersections, etc. Safe routes, rules, and education

pertain to routes which are patrolled by law enforcement officers or trained volunteers, and

pedestrian safety education incorporated into a school or community curriculum. The buffer

between the sidewalk/path and road refers to a strip of grass, dirt, landscaping, etc., which

separates the sidewalk/path from the road.


19

Pedestrian volume/speed includes the sub-domains of pedestrian volume and pedestrian

crossing speed. Pedestrian volume refers to the number of pedestrians using a walkway in a

specific time period, pedestrian crossing speed, the rate at which pedestrians cross the street.

Aesthetics and amenities include the sub-domains of perceptions of amenities, aesthetics,

and perceptions of a pleasant place to walk. Perceptions of a pleasant place to walk include

subjective impressions, which may include aesthetics. Amenities refer to comfort features

available in the walking segment, such as benches and drinking fountains. Aesthetics include

attractive (e.g., landscaping, public art) and unattractive (e.g., exhaust fumes, graffiti) features

which may affect one’s decision to walk in an area.

Other sub-domains include general walkability and walking safety policies and planning.

General walkability pertains to general perceptions of friendliness or ease/difficulty of an area

for walking. Walking policies and planning refer to policies, plans, and dedicated funds to

improve a community’s walkability.

Subject domain content overlap: Figure 2 is based on Tables A.2 and B.2 and

illustrates the sub-domain overlap for Walkability. We describe the content overlap based on

what proportion of instruments had items/questions relating to that sub-domain area.

To calculate the subject domain overlap for walkability, we counted the number of

instruments with items in each sub-domain area and divided this by 63 instruments, the

instruments that specifically related to walkability. Because the Walkability denominator is

lower than that used for the Built Environment Infrastructure domain, the proportion of overlap

is comparatively higher.

For each of the sub-domains, we discuss content overlap across instruments as high,

medium, and low levels of content overlap. A high proportion of overlap is 41-60% of


20

instruments containing items in that area, a medium proportion of overlap is 21-40% of

instruments, and a low proportion of overlap is 1-20% of instruments. More detailed information

about this content overlap can be found in Tables A.2 and B.2.

Figure 2: Walkability Content Overlap


21

High content overlap (41-60% of instruments): Sub-domains with a high proportion of

content overlap included sidewalk/path presence, sidewalk/path condition and maintenance, and

walking safety due to crime.

Specifically, 54% of the instruments included items relate to sidewalk/path presence, on

whether or not a sidewalk/path is present in a specific geographic space. Forty-six percent (46%)

of the instruments had items on sidewalk/path condition and maintenance. Such items

encompass subjective ratings of a path condition, to the presence or absence of temporary

deficiencies such as cracking and buckling. Fifty-six percent (56%) of instruments also included

items about safety features (e.g., street lighting), as well as perceptions of community safety and

violence.

Medium content overlap (21-40% of instruments): Sub-domains with a medium

proportion of content overlap included sidewalk/path features (e.g., material, width and slope,

obstructions, and continuity); walking safety related to traffic and presence of a buffer between

the sidewalk/path and road; and walking aesthetics.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the instruments included items about sidewalk/path slope,

29% about width, and 21% about materials used in sidewalk/path construction. Sidewalk/path

slope items range from exact measurements of the slope or cross-slope, as well as perceptions of

gradation (i.e., flat, moderate, or steep cross slope), and whether the slope negatively affects

walkability. Sidewalk/path width items refer to specific measurements, as well as subjective

perceptions of whether sidewalks are wide enough to accommodate multiple users (e.g., walkers

and bicyclists).

Thirty percent (30%) of the instruments contained items about sidewalk/path

obstructions, including both artificial (e.g., poles, parked cars) and natural (e.g., greenery, snow)


22

obstructions. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of the instruments included items about sidewalk/path

continuity, referring to the presence of paths routed directly to the destination without gaps in

the path.

Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the instruments included items about walking safety due

to traffic, specifically the perceived threat of traffic to pedestrians. Twenty-seven (27%) of the

instruments also contained items related to the buffer between the sidewalk/path and the road.

Protective buffers refer to whether or not natural or artificial features form a protective barrier

between the sidewalk and the road. Additionally, 33% of the instruments included items about

walking aesthetics. Such items range from perceptions on what is or is not pleasing in the

environment (e.g., attractive landscaping), to objective assessments of what these features are

(e.g., public art or noise pollution).

Low content overlap (1-20% of instruments): Sub-domains with low content overlap

included overall walkability; sidewalk/path features (length and connectivity); sidewalk/path

accessibility and slipping hazards; safety routes, rules, and education; pedestrian volume and

crossing speed; perceptions of a pleasant place to walk; and social contact while walking.

The general concept of walkability was covered by 14% of the instruments. Other

sidewalk/path features included length (3%) and whether it is connected to the greater

transportation network (9%).

Sidewalk/path accessibility and trip-slip hazards are related to the access of sidewalks

and trails. Sidewalk/path accessibility (11%) refer to whether or not they are accessible to people

with disabilities, and may include signage indicating accessible routes or personal perceptions of

accessibility. Slip-trip hazards (6%) include perceptions of hazards or whether or not certain


23

surface features are present (e.g., slick surface, loose gravel, wet leaves, etc.) which may

contribute to slip-trip hazards.

A limited amount of the instruments included items about safety routes, rules, and

education (15%) or walking policies and planning (7%) which are fundamental for developing a

community’s walkability index or rating. Items about the former include questions about walk-

to-school programs, safe routes to school, and general pedestrian safety programs. Items about

the latter are concerned about whether or not capital plans include funds for developing new

sidewalks and trails.

Other features with low overlap include pedestrian volume and crossing speed, walking

amenities, and social contact associated with walking. One percent (3%) of the instruments

included items related to pedestrian volume and the time needed to cross a street. Walking

amenities were covered by 17% of the instruments and include items about resources available

on a path/trail (e.g., shade trees, benches, bathrooms, drinking fountains), and making the walk

more comfortable and enjoyable.

Objective-subjective item focus: In addition to identifying the content overlap across

the domains and sub-domains, we considered whether items are objectively versus subjectively

focused. More detail is provided in Table B.2. For the domain of Walkability, we found that

sidewalk/path presence, materials, and the existence of walking policies and plans have a greater

proportion of objectively-worded items. Subjectively-worded items provide valuable personal

perspectives and include sidewalk/path condition and maintenance, walking safety due to crime

or traffic, and walking aesthetics.

Universal design focus: We also assessed what items are applicable to people with

disabilities, as well as the general population. More detail is provided in Table B.2. Sub-domains


24

meeting this criterion included sidewalk/path accessibility, trip/slipping hazards, obstructions,

slope/cross-slope, and resources/amenities (e.g., telephones, emergency call boxes accessible to

wheelchair users). While only a few items included sidewalk/path accessibility for people with

disabilities, other items may be applicable to this population. This includes perceptions of trip-

slip hazards, or whether sidewalk/path temporary or permanent obstructions impede an

individual’s use of that space. Items about slope or cross-slope are necessary to gauge the

potentially difficult grade for individuals with mobility or visual impairments, wheelchair users,

etc.

Bikeability

The domain of Bikeability includes 17 sub-domains which are illustrated in Figure 3.

These sub-domains fall under the areas of bicycle lane/path features; policy, planning, and

education; bicycling safety; and other issues.

Bicycle lane/path features include the sub-domains of bicycle path/lane presence,

materials, condition and maintenance, width, length, slope, continuity, accessibility, and

obstructions. Bicycle lane/path presence refers to the presence or absence of lane/path including

surface type materials (e.g., asphalt, gravel, etc.). Condition and maintenance is the current state

of repair and the regularity of the upkeep. The width, length, and slope all pertain to measured

dimensions. Continuity refers to whether or not the bicycle lane/path has an unbroken connection

between two points.

Accessibility is the extent to which a bicycle lane/path is open and can be used or

accessed by persons with disabilities, and obstructions can either be temporary or permanent

which affect the bicycle path/lane for riding.


25

Policy, planning, and education include the sub-domains of policy and planning,

promotion, and education/training. Policies and/or plans refer to bicycle transportation

development plans and other community resources to facilitate bicycle activity. Promotion refers

to community efforts to publicize and encourage more bicycling. Education/training relate to

bicycling opportunities and bicycling safety in the community for motorists, bicyclists , and

pedestrians.

Bicycling safety includes the sub-domains of safety routes and enforcement, crossing

intersections, and driver behavior. Safety routes and enforcement refer to the availability of safe

bicycling routes and whether safe bicycling and motorist laws and practices are enforced.

Crossing intersections include bicyclist perceptions of intersection crossing difficulty, and

whether signage is adequate to indicate a difficult crossing. Driver behavior refers to how

motorist actions and observance of safety laws (e.g., cutting off bicyclists, passing bicyclists too

close) affect the safety of bicyclists.

Other sub-domain areas include general bikeability and bicyclist resources. Bikeability is

a general measure of how friendly an area is for bicycling, which can include the ease of the

cycling experience as well as how attractive and pleasant the experience is. Bicycling resources

include the presence of bicycling facilities (e.g., bicycle racks, bicycle storage) and amenities

(e.g., benches and restrooms on bicycle trails).

Subject domain content overlap: Figure 3 illustrates the sub-domain overlap for

Bikeability. To calculate the subject domain overlap, we included the number of instruments

with items in each sub-domain and divided this by the 35 instruments related to bikeability.

For each of the sub-domains, we discuss content overlap across instruments as high,

medium, and low levels of content overlap. A high proportion of overlap is 41-60% of


26

instruments containing items in that area; a medium proportion of overlap is 21-40% of

instruments; and a low proportion of overlap is 1-20% of instruments. More detailed information

about this overlap can be found in Tables A.3 and B.3.

Figure 3: Bikeability Overlap

High content overlap (41-60% of instruments): Sub-domains with a high proportion of

content overlap included bicycle lane/path presence and resources. Sixty percent (60%) of

instruments demonstrated the presence or absence of a bicycle lane/path, such as whether it is a


27

marked bicycle lane, a paved shoulder, or an off-road path or trail. Forty-three percent (43%) of

instruments referred to whether resources or amenities are available, such as bicycle racks or

storage units, as well as racks, benches, and restrooms.

Medium content overlap (21-40% of instruments): Twenty-nine percent (29%) included

items related to safety routes and enforcement, and 20% to bicyclists crossing difficult or

dangerous intersections.

Low content overlap (1-20% of instruments): A relatively low proportion of instruments

covered the sub-domains of general bikeability, bicycle lane materials, condition and

maintenance, and dimensions; bicycle lane/path accessibility and obstructions; and bicycling

policy, planning, education, and safety issues. General bikeability was represented by 17% of

instruments. Items about bicycle lane surface included bicycle lane surface materials (3%), and

condition and maintenance (14%), being factors contributing to its current state of repair and

perceptions of whether or not it is maintained regularly. Items about bicycle/path dimensions

include those related to slope (11%), length (9%), and width (11%).

Other items related to the content areas of bicycle lane/path accessibility and

obstructions. Items about accessibility (9%) included community measures to improve access,

safety, and convenience of bicycle lanes/paths to the community-at-large rather than specifically

to people with disabilities. Items about obstructions (14%) referred to whether temporary or

permanent obstructions impede the bicycle lane/path.

Only 11% of the instruments included items related to bicycling policy and planning

(e.g., developing bicycle path infrastructure), promoting bicycling in a community (3%), and

teaching community members how to bicycle safely (20%). Items related to policy and planning


28

refer to whether or not communities have integrated bicycle lanes/paths within the larger

transportation network, and if there are plans and funding to expand the bicycling infrastructure.

A low proportion of instruments also contained items related to bicycling safety with

respect to bicyclists crossing busy intersections (20%) and perceptions of driver behavior

affecting bicycling safety (11%).

Objective-subjective item focus: Similar to the domain of walkability, we found that

sub-domains of bicycle lane/path presence and dimensions (e.g., width, slope), as well as the

existence of bicycling policies and plans, bicycling education, and bicycling promotion

contained a greater proportion of objectively-worded items. Items related to bicycle path/lane

maintenance and accessibility were more likely to be subjectively-worded.

Universal design focus: Like the bicycle accessibility items, we found that many

recreational sites and structures items related to recreational accessibility were not specifically

related to people with disabilities, but focused on the overall convenience of these facilities for

the general population. Other items related to bicycle lane/path obstructions and policy, however,

could be relevant to people with disabilities (e.g., obstructions related to the presence of artificial

and natural obstructions). Policy items could include whether there are plans to accommodate

cyclists with a variety of needs.

Recreational Sites and Structures

The subject domain of Recreational Sites and Structures includes 13 sub-domains seen in

Figure 4. These sub-domains are catalogued into the broader areas of recreation areas/fitness

centers, pools, parks, and other, including policies and planning, amenities/resources, and safety

issues.


29

The areas of recreation areas/fitness centers, pools, and parks include the sub-domains of

availability, accessibility, and convenient location. Availability refers to the presence/absence of

recreational facilities (e.g., tennis courts, basketball courts, other courts, baseball fields) and

fitness centers, pools, and parks. Accessibility includes whether the facility, pool, or park has

features making it useable by persons with disabilities and/or other health conditions. Convenient

location refers to whether the facility, pool, or park offers a convenient location, such as being on

a public transportation route or having convenient operating hours.

Other sub-domains include policies and planning, amenities/resources, and safety issues.

Policies and planning refer to future development plans and allocated funds for recreational

facilities and sites. Amenities and resources include bathrooms, benches, drinking fountains,

picnic tables, shelters, and trash containers that facilitate a comfortable and enjoyable

recreational experience. Safety refers to perceived safety in a recreational area and presence of

crime deterrent resources, such as adequate lighting or call boxes. We also include a sub-domain

on the visibility of other physically active community members. The presence of such

individuals can also affect the safety of the recreational setting.

Subject domain content overlap: Figure 4 is based on Tables A.4 and B.4 and shows

the sub-domain overlap for Recreational Sites and Structures. Content overlap is based on what

proportion of instruments includes items/questions in that sub-domain. To calculate the subject

domain overlap, we counted the number of instruments with items in each sub-domain and

divided this by 37 instruments that were related to recreational sites and structures.

For the sub-domain areas, we categorize content overlap across instruments as high,

medium, and low. A high proportion of overlap is 34-50% of instruments containing items in


30

that area, a medium proportion of overlap is 17-33% of instruments, and a low proportion of

overlap is 1-16% of instruments. More detailed information can be found in Tables A.4 and B.4.

Figure 4: Recreational Sites & Structures Content Overlap

High content overlap (34-50% of instruments): The only sub-domain with a high

proportion of content overlap was amenities and resources. This sub-domain was accounted for

in 46% of the instruments, and is related to the presence of benches, water fountains, public

restrooms, trash bins, and perceptions of whether these amenities serve as a comfort or

convenience.

Medium content overlap (17-33% of instruments): Sub-domains with a medium

proportion of content overlap included availability and accessibility of recreation and fitness

centers, the availability of parks, and safety issues. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of instruments


31

include items related to the presence or absence of recreational facilities (e.g., tennis courts,

basketball courts, other courts, baseball fields) and fitness centers, and 19% were related to the

accessibility of these facilities for people with disabilities or other health conditions. Twenty-

two percent (22%) of instruments were related to availability or presence of parks in a

community. Additionally, 19% of instruments included items related to individuals’ perceptions

of safety, or resources which help to ensure safety in that recreational area. Related to the topic

of safety is visibility of physically-active community members: 24% of instruments included

items on whether community members are visibly active in sports or recreation.

Low content overlap (1-16% of instruments): Sub-domains with a low proportion of

content overlap included the accessibility of pools and parks, and whether there is a convenient

location for recreational areas, parks, and pools, as well as recreational policies and planning.

Only a small proportion of instruments included items about the pool (8%) and parks

(11%) accessibility, and the convenience of location of recreational centers (8%), pools (3%),

and parks (8%). Furthermore, only 5% of instruments included items related to the plans and

funding for future development, land dedication, earmarked funds, and continual maintenance

for recreational sites and structures.

Objective-subjective item focus: The greatest proportion of objectively-worded items

were related to the presence or absence of recreation areas, fitness centers, pools, and parks,

ranging from 87.5% to 100% of these items. A sub-domain with a greater proportion of

subjectively-worded items was safety in recreational sites and structures, which relies on

personal perceptions of safety.

Universal design focus: Sub-domains applicable to people with disabilities included the

accessibility of recreation areas/fitness centers, pools, and parks. This includes adapted activities


32

or facilities that can be utilized by older adults and people with disabilities. In some cases,

however, accessibility may refer more generically to the ease of use by the general population.

Instrument Review

In Table C, we provide information about instrument purpose, intended user, universal

design focus, geographical place, instrument development literature, and psychometric

information. Though all instruments are related to the Built Environment Infrastructure features

(e.g., roads, intersections, transportation, and parking), some instruments focus more narrowly on

Walkability, Bikeability, and Recreational Sites and Structures. Roughly half of the instruments

are developed for consumer use , indicating that they can be used by a person with limited

training.

Seventeen (18) instruments (22% of the reviewed instruments) have universal design

qualities, indicating that those instruments include items pertinent to multiple user groups, such

as individuals with a disability or a related health condition, as well as the general population.

Geographical scale describes the specific geographical parameters or other space (e.g.,

community) for which the instrument was developed. While most instruments are geared to

community or neighborhood settings, others focus more specifically on active transportation

options for work or school settings. Table C provides information on instrument development

literature and psychometrics. This includes literature citations and available reliability and

validity information.

DISCUSSION

Subject domain content overlap: Across all instruments, subject domains with higher

content overlap included the presence/absence of built environment features, aesthetics and


33

amenities, and traffic control features, whereas those with lower overlap included accessibility,

safety education, and policies and planning.

This suggests that a greater proportion of the reviewed instruments included questions

about the presence or absence of facilities within a geographical space, the pleasantness of the

surrounding environment, whether or not resources are available for use of this facility (e.g.,

benches, bicycle racks), and traffic control in the streets. Such features may include the presence

of sidewalks/paths, bicycle paths, recreation facilities, and curb cuts. Aesthetics (e.g., flower

beds and public art) or the lack of aesthetics (e.g., graffiti, vandalism, and pollution) affect

whether or not an area is appealing for physical activity. Amenities and resources available in a

recreational setting (e.g., shade trees, benches, bathrooms, drinking fountains) may have a

similar effect in making an area more or less appealing and comfortable for physical activity.

While more instruments covered traffic control and pedestrian crossing features, fewer

included those related to pedestrian crossing speed features. Traffic control features include

speed limit, traffic volume, and devices that slow or restrict traffic flow through an area, like

roundabouts, ramps, or speed humps, and pedestrian crossing features include crosswalk. A

lower proportion of instruments covered pedestrian crossing speed and crosswalk signalization

timing which allows for a safe crossing.

Subject domain areas demonstrating lower content overlap included accessibility, safety

education, and policies and plans. For example, fewer instruments focused on the accessibility of

parking, transportation, walking and bicycling paths, recreation facilities, pool, and parks. In

some cases, the term accessibility referred more generally to general population access, than

specifically for people with disabilities or other sub-groups. Materials (e.g., a path surface made

of asphalt, concrete, or wood planks) and path obstructions, which can contribute to accessibility


34

problems, such as for wheelchair users or individuals with balance problems, were also present

in a lower proportion of the instruments we reviewed.

While a higher proportion of instruments referred to safety within the context of walking

environments (e.g., perceptions of safety due to traffic or crime), or intersection or crosswalk

signals, fewer instruments covered safety education and safety assessments. This includes

motorist education to share the road with bicyclists. Bicycle and pedestrian safety education

opportunities include signs, classes, written materials, and regular safety patrol. Safety analysis

involves inspection of areas where crime and/or traffic-related injuries are prevalent.

Fewer instruments included questions about policy or planning efforts with respect to the

built environment infrastructure, walkability, bikeability, or recreation sites and structures. This

may include questions about plans for the development of new walking paths or how road

development incorporates bicycle lanes. Though traditionally, built environment instruments

may not include a policy or planning component, our analysis indicates a greater need for

instruments to include questions about policies and plans, and optimally those incorporating the

accessibility needs of people with disabilities. While public health policy often has focused on

walking as a behavior that can be significantly influenced through the built environment,12

more

policies can include other types of activity such as bicycling and recreation. This may include

municipal plans which accommodate pedestrians and cyclists in new design and retrofit road

projects, and the development of walking and bicycle paths in recreational areas.

Objective-subjective focus: Generally, the presence or absence of built environment

features, feature dimensions (e.g., sidewalk width and slope), and the existence of policies and

plans were defined with objectively-worded items. Sub-domains related to safety, feature

condition and maintenance, accessibility, and aesthetics were more likely defined with


35

subjectively-worded items. While subjectively-worded items are necessary to provide valuable

personal perspectives, objectively-worded items introduce less inter-rater reliability problems.

The measurement of some sub-domains might be expanded by adopting a greater

proportion of objectively- or subjectively-worded items. For example, while the sidewalk/path

condition and maintenance tends to be a subjectively-assessed area, more objectively-worded

items might include how (e.g., mopping, brushing) and when a surface has been cleaned.

Perceptions about sidewalk/path obstructions might be reworded as the presence or absence of

specific types of obstructions (e.g., bushes, poles, signs, parked cars). Likewise, more safety

items may focus on what objective features (e.g., street lighting, call boxes) might limit crime in

an area.

Alternatively, other sub-domain areas may include more subjective perspectives. Items

may query whether specific policies or rules are beneficial for respondents, such as what are the

most enjoyable features (e.g., walking paths, parks) in the environment.

Universal design focus: In particular, we found that the accessibility needs of people

with disabilities were not included in most of the instruments we examined. We recommend that

more universally-designed measures be developed that incorporate items related to all

populations, rather than disability-specific instruments. Measures from many domain areas can

be adapted with an accessibility focus. This might include items about walking or bicycling

resources related to people with disabilities, such as accessible water fountains, bathrooms,

benches, and signage for motorists or bicyclists using adapted bicycles. The needs of individuals

with mobility and visual impairments might be considered in questions about the materials and

dimensions (e.g., slope or cross-slope) required for walking and bicycling paths. Items about

street crossing speed and signalization, a particular concern for individuals with mobility


36

limitations, can be adapted. Instruments may also ask about the dimensions of raised crosswalks,

which can present problems for people with mobility or visual impairments, and whether

pedestrian crossing/refuge islands (with or without gates) can accommodate rollers (i.e., people

using scooters or wheelchairs).

Our analysis has demonstrated a need for comprehensive instruments to include several

content domains (e.g., built environment infrastructure, walkability, bikeability , recreation sites

and structures) and include questions related to policies and planning, accessibility, and safety

education. Instruments can include questions related to policies and planning related to all users’

needs. For example, instruments can inquire about whether there are plans to develop public

transportation routes that connect to walking and bicycle paths, and are accessible to people with

disabilities through ramps and lifts. Policies should also include the preferable walking and

bicycling path materials and the slope/incline that meet the needs of all users in a community,

including people with disabilities.

Future recommendations include the following: (1) Designing instruments with a

universal design focus, which are inclusive of all populations and communities, rather than

disability-specific. (2) Standardization of instrument terminology so that items from specific sub-

domains are referring to the same underlying concepts. This will help to measure the same

concepts across different settings. (3) We also recommend the use of computer-adapted

instruments (CAT) in measuring the built environment. CAT can be used to assess the same

environment with a limited number of items , tailored to that unique setting. Furthermore, with

computer technology, such instrumentation can be easily administered in community settings,

such as with the help of PDAs, cell phones, laptop computers, etc. Ideally, data can be


37

downloaded and scored in real time, producing a composite score and recommendations for that

built environment sub-domain.

CONCLUSION

Our content review of community-based instruments has included an identification of the

subject domain areas of built environment infrastructure, walkability, bikeability, and

recreational sites and structures. The goal has been to examine domain content overlap across

instruments, identify the proportion of objective and subjective measures, and assess their

universal design focus and capability.

While domain areas with higher content overlap included the presence/absence of built

environment features, aesthetics and amenities, and traffic control features, those with lower

overlap included accessibility, safety education, and policies and planning. Ideally, more

instruments can incorporate accessibility or universal design elements into their existing

measures, to appeal to the widest audience possible. Measures of safety may also include

educational and assessment components. Other suggestions include the expansion of measures

by adopting a greater proportion of objectively- or subjectively-worded items.

Our analysis indicates a greater need for comprehensive instruments that span several

content domains (e.g., built environment infrastructure, walkability, bikeability, recreation sites

and structures) and include questions related to policies and planning, accessibility, and safety

education, as well as other domains demonstrating a higher proportion of content overlap (e.g.,

presence/absence of built environment features, traffic control features). We recommend the

development of universally-designed measures that incorporate items related to all populations

and community uses, rather than disability-specific instruments. We have provided examples of

how existing instruments and items may be adapted to incorporate people with disabilities, as


38

well as other users. Furthermore, we suggest the use of computer-adapted instruments (CAT),

which can produce composite sets of items for measuring specific settings, and provide the user

with a score and recommendations for that component of the built environment.


39

REFERENCES

1. McGinnis J, Foege WH. Actual causes of death in the United States. JAMA.

1993;270:2207-2212. 2. CDC. Physical activity among adults with a disability--United States, 2005. MMWR.

2007;56:1021-1024. 3. King AC, Bauman A, Abrams DB. Forging transdisciplinary bridges to meet the physical

inactivity challenge of the 21st century. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2002;23(2S):104-106.

4. Hoehner CM, Brennan Ramirez LK, Elliott MB, Handy SL, Brownson RC. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2005;28(2S2):105-116. 5. Frank LD, Engelke PO, Schmid TL. Health and community design. The impact of the

built environment on physical activity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 2003. 6. McCormack G, Giles-Corti B, Lange A, Smith T, Martin K, Pikora TJ. An update of

recent evidence of the relationship between objective and self-report measures of the physical environment and physical activity behaviors. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2004;7(1 Supplement):81-92.

7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office 2000 November. 8. King AC, Castro C, Wilcox S, Eyler AA, Sallis JF, Brownson RC. Personal and

environmental factors associated with physical inactivity among different racial-ethnic groups of U.S. middle-aged and older-aged women. Health Psychology. 2000;19(4):354-

364. 9. Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingworth RE. How the built environment affects

physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2002;23(2S):64-73.

10. Transportation Research Board. Does the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences; 2005.

11. Institute for Human Centered Design. Universal Design: What is Universal Design http://www.adaptiveenvironments.org/index.php?option=Content&Itemid=3; 2008.

12. Sallis JF, Owen N. Physical activity and behavioral medicine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.

http://www.adaptiveenvironments.org/index.php?option=Content&Itemid=3;

Table A.1. Built Environment Infrastructure Domain Summary

40

Ro

ad

s

Road T

ype

N

um

ber

of

Tra

ffic

Lanes

Alignm

ent

& C

onfigura

tion

Road M

ate

rials

Slo

pe &

Terr

ain

W

idth

Conditio

n

C

urb

Cu

ts/

Ra

mp

s

Availability

Dim

ensio

ns

In

te

rse

ctio

n/

Cro

ssw

alk

Inte

rsection T

ype &

Num

ber

Cro

ssw

alk

Availability

Cro

ssw

alk

Sig

nage &

Sig

nals

Cro

ssw

alk

Featu

res

Cro

ssw

alk

Tim

ing

Tra

ffic

Co

ntro

l

Tra

ffic

Volu

me &

Density

Speed L

imit

Vehic

le T

raff

ic C

ontr

ol

Tra

nsp

ortatio

n

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

Pa

rk

ing

Availability

A

ccessib

ility

Po

licy

& P

lan

nin

g

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

AARP Livable Communities Assessment Tool

X

X X X

X X

Accessibility Instruments Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments (AIMFREE) (Consumer Version)

X

Active Community Environments (ACE) Checklist (Washington State Dept. of Health, 2007)

X X X X

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) Checklist for Buildings & Facilities

X

X

Arlington Bike Survey (Troped et al., 2001) X

Association between Neighborhood Active Living Potential and Walking (Gauvin, L., et al., 2007)

Australian Bicycle Council (2000), Cycling Data and Indicator Guidelines

Bikeability Worksheet (Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation) X

X X

BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO) X X X X X X

CDC Worksite Walkability Audit Tool X X X


41

Ro

ad

s

Road T

ype

N

um

ber

of

Tra

ffic

Lanes

Alignm

ent

& C

onfigura

tion

Road M

ate

rials

Slo

pe &

Terr

ain

W

idth

Conditio

n

C

urb

Cu

ts/

Ra

mp

s

Availability

Dim

ensio

ns

In

te

rse

ctio

n/

Cro

ssw

alk

Inte

rsection T

ype &

Num

ber

Cro

ssw

alk

Availability

Cro

ssw

alk

Sig

nage &

Sig

nals

Cro

ssw

alk

Featu

res

Cro

ssw

alk

Tim

ing

Tra

ffic

Co

ntro

l

Tra

ffic

Volu

me &

Density

Speed L

imit

Vehic

le T

raff

ic C

ontr

ol

Tra

nsp

ortatio

n

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

Pa

rk

ing

Availability

A

ccessib

ility

Po

licy

& P

lan

nin

g

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

C ity of Edmonton CPTED Safety Audit

Community Accessibility Survey (Horner-Johnson)

X

Community Health Environment Checklist (CHEC)

X

X X

Community Street Review (New Zealand Transport Agency; Living Streets Audits)

X

X X

Core Measures of Trail Use (Spruijt-Metz, D. et al., 2005)

Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors (CHIEF)

X

Department of Transportation (DOT) Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI)

X

X X X

Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces (EAPRS) Tool

X

Environmental Design & Pedestrian Travel Behavior (Shriver, 1997)

X X X X

Environmental Supports for Physical Activity Questionnaire (Ainsworth, B. et al., 2002)

X


42

Ro

ad

s

Road T

ype

N

um

ber

of

Tra

ffic

Lanes

Alignm

ent

& C

onfigura

tion

Road M

ate

rials

Slo

pe &

Terr

ain

W

idth

Conditio

n

C

urb

Cu

ts/

Ra

mp

s

Availability

Dim

ensio

ns

In

te

rse

ctio

n/

Cro

ssw

alk

Inte

rsection T

ype &

Num

ber

Cro

ssw

alk

Availability

Cro

ssw

alk

Sig

nage &

Sig

nals

Cro

ssw

alk

Featu

res

Cro

ssw

alk

Tim

ing

Tra

ffic

Co

ntro

l

Tra

ffic

Volu

me &

Density

Speed L

imit

Vehic

le T

raff

ic C

ontr

ol

Tra

nsp

ortatio

n

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

Pa

rk

ing

Availability

A

ccessib

ility

Po

licy

& P

lan

nin

g

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Environmental, Social, and Personal Correlates of Cycling (Titze, et al., 2007)

X X

Facilitators & Barriers Survey/Mobility

(FABS/M)

X

Features of the Neighborhood Environment & Walking (Suminski, R., et al., 2005)

X

X X

Federal Transit Administration's ADA Assessment Sheets

X X

X X

Gainesville Bicycle & Pedestrian Level of Service Performance Measures (Dixon, L. B.,

1996)

X X X

X X X X

GIS Analysis Tool for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety - Bicycle Items

X X X X X X

GIS Analysis Tool for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety- Pedestrian Items

X X X

X X X X X

GIS Walkability Index (Leslie, E. et al., 2007)

Health Empowerment Zone Environmental Assessment Tool (HEZEAT)

X X

X X X

Healthy Development Measurement Tool

(HDMT)

X

X X X X X


43

Ro

ad

s

Road T

ype

N

um

ber

of

Tra

ffic

Lanes

Alignm

ent

& C

onfigura

tion

Road M

ate

rials

Slo

pe &

Terr

ain

W

idth

Conditio

n

C

urb

Cu

ts/

Ra

mp

s

Availability

Dim

ensio

ns

In

te

rse

ctio

n/

Cro

ssw

alk

Inte

rsection T

ype &

Num

ber

Cro

ssw

alk

Availability

Cro

ssw

alk

Sig

nage &

Sig

nals

Cro

ssw

alk

Featu

res

Cro

ssw

alk

Tim

ing

Tra

ffic

Co

ntro

l

Tra

ffic

Volu

me &

Density

Speed L

imit

Vehic

le T

raff

ic C

ontr

ol

Tra

nsp

ortatio

n

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

Pa

rk

ing

Availability

A

ccessib

ility

Po

licy

& P

lan

nin

g

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (HealthySEAT)

X X

Home and Community Environment

Instrument (HACE)

X

X X

Irvine Minnesota Inventory X X X X X X X X

King County Active Community Checklist

X X X

League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Communities Campaign

Measure of the Quality of the Environment (MQE)

X

X X X

Measurement Instrument for Urban Quantities Related to Walkability

Measurement Properties of Neighborhood Scales (Mujahid, M. et al., 2007)

X

National Association of County & City Health Officials (NACCHO) & Tri-County Health Department in Colorado’s Public Health in Land Use Planning & Community Design

X X

National Center for Safe Routes to School (NCSRTS) Parents Survey

X X


44

Ro

ad

s

Road T

ype

N

um

ber

of

Tra

ffic

Lanes

Alignm

ent

& C

onfigura

tion

Road M

ate

rials

Slo

pe &

Terr

ain

W

idth

Conditio

n

C

urb

Cu

ts/

Ra

mp

s

Availability

Dim

ensio

ns

In

te

rse

ctio

n/

Cro

ssw

alk

Inte

rsection T

ype &

Num

ber

Cro

ssw

alk

Availability

Cro

ssw

alk

Sig

nage &

Sig

nals

Cro

ssw

alk

Featu

res

Cro

ssw

alk

Tim

ing

Tra

ffic

Co

ntro

l

Tra

ffic

Volu

me &

Density

Speed L

imit

Vehic

le T

raff

ic C

ontr

ol

Tra

nsp

ortatio

n

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

Pa

rk

ing

Availability

A

ccessib

ility

Po

licy

& P

lan

nin

g

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Neighborhood Characteristics Questionnaire (McGuire, J. B., 1997)

Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS) (Saelens, B. E., & Sallis, J. F., 2002)

X

X X X X X X X

Neighborhood Observational Checklist (Zenk, S. N. et al., 2007)

X

X

Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire (NPAQ) (Giles-Corti, B. et al., 2006)

Neighborhood Walking & Cycling Among Children (Timperio, A. et al., 2004)

X X

NW Americans with Disabilities Act & Info Tech Center: Accessible Parking Inventory

X

X X

Participation Survey/Mobility (PARTS/M)

(Gray, D. B. et al., 2006)

Path Environmental Audit Tool (PEAT) (Troped, P. J. et al., 2006)

X X X X X

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) Bicyclist Audit

X X X X X X

X X

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool

(PBCAT) Pedestrian Audit X X X X X X

X X


45

Ro

ad

s

Road T

ype

N

um

ber

of

Tra

ffic

Lanes

Alignm

ent

& C

onfigura

tion

Road M

ate

rials

Slo

pe &

Terr

ain

W

idth

Conditio

n

C

urb

Cu

ts/

Ra

mp

s

Availability

Dim

ensio

ns

In

te

rse

ctio

n/

Cro

ssw

alk

Inte

rsection T

ype &

Num

ber

Cro

ssw

alk

Availability

Cro

ssw

alk

Sig

nage &

Sig

nals

Cro

ssw

alk

Featu

res

Cro

ssw

alk

Tim

ing

Tra

ffic

Co

ntro

l

Tra

ffic

Volu

me &

Density

Speed L

imit

Vehic

le T

raff

ic C

ontr

ol

Tra

nsp

ortatio

n

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

Pa

rk

ing

Availability

A

ccessib

ility

Po

licy

& P

lan

nin

g

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool

X X

X

X X X X

Pedestrian Environment Quality Index (PEQI) X

X

X X

Pedestrian Environmental Factor (PEF) (1000 Friends of Portland, 1993)

X

Pedestrian Infrastructure Prioritization (PIP)

Decision System (Moudon A. V., 2001) X

X X X X X

Pedestrian Location Identification (PLI) – Tool 1 (Moudon A. V., 2001)


Perceived Access to Supportive Physical Environment (Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J., 2002)

Perceived Environment Attributes, Residential

Location, and Walking (Humpel, N. et al., 2004)

Perceived Environmental Variables -- Physical Activity (Sallis, J. F. et al., 1997)

X


46

Ro

ad

s

Road T

ype

N

um

ber

of

Tra

ffic

Lanes

Alignm

ent

& C

onfigura

tion

Road M

ate

rials

Slo

pe &

Terr

ain

W

idth

Conditio

n

C

urb

Cu

ts/

Ra

mp

s

Availability

Dim

ensio

ns

In

te

rse

ctio

n/

Cro

ssw

alk

Inte

rsection T

ype &

Num

ber

Cro

ssw

alk

Availability

Cro

ssw

alk

Sig

nage &

Sig

nals

Cro

ssw

alk

Featu

res

Cro

ssw

alk

Tim

ing

Tra

ffic

Co

ntro

l

Tra

ffic

Volu

me &

Density

Speed L

imit

Vehic

le T

raff

ic C

ontr

ol

Tra

nsp

ortatio

n

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

Pa

rk

ing

Availability

A

ccessib

ility

Po

licy

& P

lan

nin

g

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Physical Activity Community Assessment

(California Department of Public Health) X

X

Physical Activity in Communities

Questionnaire (Eyler, A. A. et al., 2003)

Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument (Lee, R. E. et al., 2005)

Preadolescent Environmental Access to Physical Activity Questionnaire, (Erwin, H. E., 2008)

Prevention Research Center Healthy Aging Research Network (PRC-HAN) Environmental Audit Tool

X

X

X X X X X X X

Promoting Active Communities Assessment

(Michigan Department of Community Health)

X

Safe Routes Startup Checklist (2006) (America Walks and CDC PAPRN)

X

X X X X X X

Senior Walking Environmental Assessment

Tool (SWEAT) X X

X X

X X X


47

Ro

ad

s

Road T

ype

N

um

ber

of

Tra

ffic

Lanes

Alignm

ent

& C

onfigura

tion

Road M

ate

rials

Slo

pe &

Terr

ain

W

idth

Conditio

n

C

urb

Cu

ts/

Ra

mp

s

Availability

Dim

ensio

ns

In

te

rse

ctio

n/

Cro

ssw

alk

Inte

rsection T

ype &

Num

ber

Cro

ssw

alk

Availability

Cro

ssw

alk

Sig

nage &

Sig

nals

Cro

ssw

alk

Featu

res

Cro

ssw

alk

Tim

ing

Tra

ffic

Co

ntro

l

Tra

ffic

Volu

me &

Density

Speed L

imit

Vehic

le T

raff

ic C

ontr

ol

Tra

nsp

ortatio

n

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

Pa

rk

ing

Availability

A

ccessib

ility

Po

licy

& P

lan

nin

g

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Sidewalk Assessment Tool (South Carolina Prevention Research Center; Williams, J. et al., 2005)

Slips Assessment Tool (SAT) (British Health and Safety Commission)

Social & Physical Environmental Supports for Physical Activity (Addy, 2004)

St. Louis Environment & Physical Activity Instrument

X X

Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St. Louis

University School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003)

X X

X

X X X X X X

System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth (SOPLAY)

System for Observing Play and Recreation in

Communities (SOPARC)

Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES)

X X X

X

X X X X

Tool to Assess Sidewalk Maintenance (University of South Carolina Prevention Research Center, Williams, J. et al., 2005)


48

Ro

ad

s

Road T

ype

N

um

ber

of

Tra

ffic

Lanes

Alignm

ent

& C

onfigura

tion

Road M

ate

rials

Slo

pe &

Terr

ain

W

idth

Conditio

n

C

urb

Cu

ts/

Ra

mp

s

Availability

Dim

ensio

ns

In

te

rse

ctio

n/

Cro

ssw

alk

Inte

rsection T

ype &

Num

ber

Cro

ssw

alk

Availability

Cro

ssw

alk

Sig

nage &

Sig

nals

Cro

ssw

alk

Featu

res

Cro

ssw

alk

Tim

ing

Tra

ffic

Co

ntro

l

Tra

ffic

Volu

me &

Density

Speed L

imit

Vehic

le T

raff

ic C

ontr

ol

Tra

nsp

ortatio

n

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

Pa

rk

ing

Availability

A

ccessib

ility

Po

licy

& P

lan

nin

g

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Traffic and Health in Glasgow Questionnaire (Ogilvie, D. et al., 2008)

X X

Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K., 2003)

X

X X X X

Violence-Related Assessment Tool for School Environments (Centers for Disease Control &

Prevention)

X

Walkability Worksheet (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation)

X

X

X X X

Walking & Bicycling Suitability Assessment (WABASA) (Emery, J. et al., 1998)

X

X

X X X X X X

Table A.2. Walkability Domain Summary

48

Sid

ew

alk

/P

ath

Pre

sence

A

ccessib

ility

M

ate

rials

Conditio

n &

Main

tenance

Tri

p/S

lippin

g H

azard

s

Obstr

uctions

Wid

th

Length

Continuity

Connectivity`

Slo

pe

Walk

ing

Safe

ty

C

rim

e

Tra

ffic

S

afe

Route

s,

Rule

s,

& E

ducation

B

uff

er

Betw

een S

idew

alk

/Path

& R

oad

Po

licy &

Pla

nn

ing

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

P

ed

estr

ian

Vo

lum

e &

Sp

eed

Pedestr

ian V

olu

me

Cro

ssin

g S

peed &

Countd

ow

n t

o C

ross

A

esth

eti

cs &

Am

en

itie

s

Ple

asant

Pla

ce t

o W

alk

A

esth

etics

A

menitie

s

O

ther

G

enera

l W

alk

ability


X X X X

X

X



X X X X X X X X X


Arlington Bike Survey (Troped et al., 2001) X X


X X X X

Australian Bicycle Council (2000), Cycling Data and

Indicator Guidelines X X X

Bikeability Worksheet (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation)

BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO) X X X X X

CDC Worksite Walkability Audit Tool X X X X X X X X

City of Edmonton CPTED Safety Audit X


49

Sid

ew

alk

/P

ath

Pre

sence

A

ccessib

ility

M

ate

rials

Conditio

n &

Main

tenance

Tri

p/S

lippin

g H

azard

s

Obstr

uctions

Wid

th

Length

Continuity

Connectivity`

Slo

pe

Walk

ing

Safe

ty

C

rim

e

Tra

ffic

S

afe

Route

s,

Rule

s,

& E

ducation

B

uff

er

Betw

een S

idew

alk

/Path

& R

oad

Po

licy &

Pla

nn

ing

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

P

ed

estr

ian

Vo

lum

e &

Sp

eed

Pedestr

ian V

olu

me

Cro

ssin

g S

peed &

Countd

ow

n t

o C

ross

A

esth

eti

cs &

Am

en

itie

s

Ple

asant

Pla

ce t

o W

alk

A

esth

etics

A

menitie

s

O

ther

G

enera

l W

alk

ability



Community Street Review (New Zealand

Transport Agency; Living Streets Audits) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors

(CHIEF)



X X X X X X X

Environmental Design & Pedestrian Travel Behavior (Shriver, 1997)

X X X X


X X X X X


X

Facilitators & Barriers Survey/Mobility (FABS/M) X X


50

Sid

ew

alk

/P

ath

Pre

sence

A

ccessib

ility

M

ate

rials

Conditio

n &

Main

tenance

Tri

p/S

lippin

g H

azard

s

Obstr

uctions

Wid

th

Length

Continuity

Connectivity`

Slo

pe

Walk

ing

Safe

ty

C

rim

e

Tra

ffic

S

afe

Route

s,

Rule

s,

& E

ducation

B

uff

er

Betw

een S

idew

alk

/Path

& R

oad

Po

licy &

Pla

nn

ing

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

P

ed

estr

ian

Vo

lum

e &

Sp

eed

Pedestr

ian V

olu

me

Cro

ssin

g S

peed &

Countd

ow

n t

o C

ross

A

esth

eti

cs &

Am

en

itie

s

Ple

asant

Pla

ce t

o W

alk

A

esth

etics

A

menitie

s

O

ther

G

enera

l W

alk

ability


X X X


X X X X X

Gainesville Bicycle & Pedestrian Level of Service Performance Measures (Dixon, L. B., 1996)

X X X X X X X

GIS Analysis Tool for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

- Bicycle Items X


X

GIS Walkability Index (Leslie, E. et al., 2007) X


X X X X X X X

Healthy Development Measurement Tool (HDMT) X X X X X X


X X

Home and Community Environment Instrument (HACE)

X

Irvine Minnesota Inventory X X X X X X X X X


51

Sid

ew

alk

/P

ath

Pre

sence

A

ccessib

ility

M

ate

rials

Conditio

n &

Main

tenance

Tri

p/S

lippin

g H

azard

s

Obstr

uctions

Wid

th

Length

Continuity

Connectivity`

Slo

pe

Walk

ing

Safe

ty

C

rim

e

Tra

ffic

S

afe

Route

s,

Rule

s,

& E

ducation

B

uff

er

Betw

een S

idew

alk

/Path

& R

oad

Po

licy &

Pla

nn

ing

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

P

ed

estr

ian

Vo

lum

e &

Sp

eed

Pedestr

ian V

olu

me

Cro

ssin

g S

peed &

Countd

ow

n t

o C

ross

A

esth

eti

cs &

Am

en

itie

s

Ple

asant

Pla

ce t

o W

alk

A

esth

etics

A

menitie

s

O

ther

G

enera

l W

alk

ability

King County Active Community Checklist X X X X


Measure of the Quality of the Environment (MQE) X X X



X X X X X


X X X X


X X X X


X X


X X X X X X X X X X X


X X


52

Sid

ew

alk

/P

ath

Pre

sence

A

ccessib

ility

M

ate

rials

Conditio

n &

Main

tenance

Tri

p/S

lippin

g H

azard

s

Obstr

uctions

Wid

th

Length

Continuity

Connectivity`

Slo

pe

Walk

ing

Safe

ty

C

rim

e

Tra

ffic

S

afe

Route

s,

Rule

s,

& E

ducation

B

uff

er

Betw

een S

idew

alk

/Path

& R

oad

Po

licy &

Pla

nn

ing

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

P

ed

estr

ian

Vo

lum

e &

Sp

eed

Pedestr

ian V

olu

me

Cro

ssin

g S

peed &

Countd

ow

n t

o C

ross

A

esth

eti

cs &

Am

en

itie

s

Ple

asant

Pla

ce t

o W

alk

A

esth

etics

A

menitie

s

O

ther

G

enera

l W

alk

ability


Neighborhood Walking & Cycling Among Children

(Timperio, A. et al., 2004) X X


Participation Survey/Mobility (PARTS/M) (Gray, D. B. et al., 2006)


X X X X X X X X


(PBCAT) Bicyclist Audit X

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) Pedestrian Audit

X

Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool X X X X X X X X X X X

Pedestrian Environment Quality Index (PEQI) X X X X X X


X X

Pedestrian Infrastructure Prioritization (PIP) Decision System (Moudon A. V., 2001)

X X X


53

Sid

ew

alk

/P

ath

Pre

sence

A

ccessib

ility

M

ate

rials

Conditio

n &

Main

tenance

Tri

p/S

lippin

g H

azard

s

Obstr

uctions

Wid

th

Length

Continuity

Connectivity`

Slo

pe

Walk

ing

Safe

ty

C

rim

e

Tra

ffic

S

afe

Route

s,

Rule

s,

& E

ducation

B

uff

er

Betw

een S

idew

alk

/Path

& R

oad

Po

licy &

Pla

nn

ing

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

P

ed

estr

ian

Vo

lum

e &

Sp

eed

Pedestr

ian V

olu

me

Cro

ssin

g S

peed &

Countd

ow

n t

o C

ross

A

esth

eti

cs &

Am

en

itie

s

Ple

asant

Pla

ce t

o W

alk

A

esth

etics

A

menitie

s

O

ther

G

enera

l W

alk

ability




X X X

Perceived Environment Attributes, Residential Location, and Walking (Humpel, N. et al., 2004)

X X X X X X X


X X X X

Physical Activity Community Assessment

(California Department of Public Health) X X X X X X X

Physical Activity in Communities Questionnaire (Eyler, A. A. et al., 2003)

X X X X X


X X X

Preadolescent Environmental Access to Physical

Activity Questionnaire, (Erwin, H. E., 2008) X X X X


54

Sid

ew

alk

/P

ath

Pre

sence

A

ccessib

ility

M

ate

rials

Conditio

n &

Main

tenance

Tri

p/S

lippin

g H

azard

s

Obstr

uctions

Wid

th

Length

Continuity

Connectivity`

Slo

pe

Walk

ing

Safe

ty

C

rim

e

Tra

ffic

S

afe

Route

s,

Rule

s,

& E

ducation

B

uff

er

Betw

een S

idew

alk

/Path

& R

oad

Po

licy &

Pla

nn

ing

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

P

ed

estr

ian

Vo

lum

e &

Sp

eed

Pedestr

ian V

olu

me

Cro

ssin

g S

peed &

Countd

ow

n t

o C

ross

A

esth

eti

cs &

Am

en

itie

s

Ple

asant

Pla

ce t

o W

alk

A

esth

etics

A

menitie

s

O

ther

G

enera

l W

alk

ability



Promoting Active Communities Assessment (Michigan Department of Community Health)

X X X


X X X X X X X X X

Senior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool (SWEAT)

X X X X X X


X X X


X X


X X


X X X X X X X X

Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St. Louis

University School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003)

X X X X X X X X X


55

Sid

ew

alk

/P

ath

Pre

sence

A

ccessib

ility

M

ate

rials

Conditio

n &

Main

tenance

Tri

p/S

lippin

g H

azard

s

Obstr

uctions

Wid

th

Length

Continuity

Connectivity`

Slo

pe

Walk

ing

Safe

ty

C

rim

e

Tra

ffic

S

afe

Route

s,

Rule

s,

& E

ducation

B

uff

er

Betw

een S

idew

alk

/Path

& R

oad

Po

licy &

Pla

nn

ing

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

P

ed

estr

ian

Vo

lum

e &

Sp

eed

Pedestr

ian V

olu

me

Cro

ssin

g S

peed &

Countd

ow

n t

o C

ross

A

esth

eti

cs &

Am

en

itie

s

Ple

asant

Pla

ce t

o W

alk

A

esth

etics

A

menitie

s

O

ther

G

enera

l W

alk

ability


System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC)

Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental

Scan (SPACES) X X X X X X X X X X


X X X


X X X X X

Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K., 2003) X X X X X X X X X X

Violence-Related Assessment Tool for School Environments (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention)

X


X X X X X X X X


X X X X X X X

Table A.3. Bikeability Domain Summary

56

Bic

ycle

Lan

e/

Path

Pre

sence

M

ate

rials

C

onditio

n &

Main

tenance

W

idth

Length

C

ontinuity

S

lope

A

ccessib

ility

O

bstr

uctions

P

oli

cy &

Pla

nn

ing

, E

ducati

on

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Pro

motion

Tra

inin

g &

Education

B

icycli

ng

Safe

ty

S

afe

ty R

oute

s &

Enfo

rcem

ent

C

rossin

g I

nte

rsections

D

river

Behavio

r

O

ther

Genera

l B

ikeability

R

esourc

es


X



X X X X X


Arlington Bike Survey (Troped et al., 2001)



X X X X


X X X X


X X X X X X X X X X

BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO)

CDC Worksite Walkability Audit Tool

City of Edmonton CPTED Safety Audit






Department of Transportation Bicycle Compatibility Index (DOT-BCI)

X X X X X X


Environmental Design & Pedestrian

Travel Behavior (Shriver, 1997) X


57

Bic

ycle

Lan

e/

Path

Pre

sence

M

ate

rials

C

onditio

n &

Main

tenance

W

idth

Length

C

ontinuity

S

lope

A

ccessib

ility

O

bstr

uctions

P

oli

cy &

Pla

nn

ing

, E

ducati

on

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Pro

motion

Tra

inin

g &

Education

B

icycli

ng

Safe

ty

S

afe

ty R

oute

s &

Enfo

rcem

ent

C

rossin

g I

nte

rsections

D

river

Behavio

r

O

ther

Genera

l B

ikeability

R

esourc

es


X


X X

Facilitators & Barriers Survey/Mobility (FABS/M)

Features of the Neighborhood

Environment & Walking (Suminski, R., et al., 2005)



X


X


GIS Walkability Index (Leslie, E. et al.,

2007)

Health Empowerment Zone Environmental Assessment Tool

(HEZEAT)

Healthy Development Measurement Tool (HDMT)

X


X X


Irvine Minnesota Inventory X

King County Active Community Checklist X X

League of American Bicyclists Bicycle

Friendly Communities Campaign X X X X X X X X X




58

Bic

ycle

Lan

e/

Path

Pre

sence

M

ate

rials

C

onditio

n &

Main

tenance

W

idth

Length

C

ontinuity

S

lope

A

ccessib

ility

O

bstr

uctions

P

oli

cy &

Pla

nn

ing

, E

ducati

on

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Pro

motion

Tra

inin

g &

Education

B

icycli

ng

Safe

ty

S

afe

ty R

oute

s &

Enfo

rcem

ent

C

rossin

g I

nte

rsections

D

river

Behavio

r

O

ther

Genera

l B

ikeability

R

esourc

es



X


X


Neighborhood Environment Walkability

Survey (NEWS) (Saelens, B. E., & Sallis, J. F., 2002)

X



Neighborhood Walking & Cycling Among

Children (Timperio, A. et al., 2004)

NW Americans with Disabilities Act & Info

Tech Center: Accessible Parking Inventory

Participation Survey/Mobility (PARTS/M)

(Gray, D. B. et al., 2006)


X


X

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis

Tool (PBCAT) Pedestrian Audit


X X X

Pedestrian Environment Quality Index (PEQI)

Pedestrian Environmental Factor (PEF)

(1000 Friends of Portland, 1993)

Pedestrian Infrastructure Prioritization (PIP) Decision System (Moudon A. V., 2001)


59

Bic

ycle

Lan

e/

Path

Pre

sence

M

ate

rials

C

onditio

n &

Main

tenance

W

idth

Length

C

ontinuity

S

lope

A

ccessib

ility

O

bstr

uctions

P

oli

cy &

Pla

nn

ing

, E

ducati

on

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Pro

motion

Tra

inin

g &

Education

B

icycli

ng

Safe

ty

S

afe

ty R

oute

s &

Enfo

rcem

ent

C

rossin

g I

nte

rsections

D

river

Behavio

r

O

ther

Genera

l B

ikeability

R

esourc

es




Perceived Environment Attributes, Residential Location, and Walking (Humpel, N. et al., 2004)

Perceived Environmental Variables -- Physical Activity (Sallis, J. F. et al.,

1997)

Physical Activity Community Assessment (California Department of Public Health)

X X


Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument (Lee, R. E. et al.,

2005)

X

Preadolescent Environmental Access to Physical Activity Questionnaire, (Erwin,

H. E., 2008)


X X X


X X


X X X X


X


Slips Assessment Tool (SAT) (British

Health and Safety Commission)



60

Bic

ycle

Lan

e/

Path

Pre

sence

M

ate

rials

C

onditio

n &

Main

tenance

W

idth

Length

C

ontinuity

S

lope

A

ccessib

ility

O

bstr

uctions

P

oli

cy &

Pla

nn

ing

, E

ducati

on

Policy &

Pla

nnin

g

Pro

motion

Tra

inin

g &

Education

B

icycli

ng

Safe

ty

S

afe

ty R

oute

s &

Enfo

rcem

ent

C

rossin

g I

nte

rsections

D

river

Behavio

r

O

ther

Genera

l B

ikeability

R

esourc

es


X

Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St.

Louis University School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003)

X X X X X X




X X X

Tool to Assess Sidewalk Maintenance (University of South Carolina Prevention

Research Center, Williams, J. et al., 2005)

Traffic and Health in Glasgow

Questionnaire (Ogilvie, D. et al., 2008) X X X X


X



Walking & Bicycling Suitability Assessment (WABASA) (Emery, J. et al.,

1998)

X X X X X X X X

Table A.4. Recreational Sites and Structures Domain Summary

61

Recre

ati

on

Facil

ity/

Fit

ness C

en

ters

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

P

oo

ls

A

vailability

Accessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

Parks

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

O

ther

Policie

s &

Pla

nnin

g

A

menitie

s &

Resourc

es

Safe

ty

C

om

munity M

em

bers

Engaged in P

A


X X

X X

X X

X


X X X X


X X X


X

Arlington Bike Survey (Troped et al., 2001)


X



BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO) X X X X

CDC Worksite Walkability Audit Tool X

City of Edmonton CPTED Safety Audit X

Community Accessibility Survey (Horner-

Johnson) X



X


X




X X


62

Recre

ati

on

Facil

ity/

Fit

ness C

en

ters

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

P

oo

ls

A

vailability

Accessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

Parks

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

O

ther

Policie

s &

Pla

nnin

g

A

menitie

s &

Resourc

es

Safe

ty

C

om

munity M

em

bers

Engaged in P

A

Environmental Design & Pedestrian Trave l Behavior (Shriver, 1997)

X


X X X X X X X


Facilitators & Barriers Survey/Mobility (FABS/M)

X




X





Healthy Development Measurement Tool (HDMT)

X



X

Irvine Minnesota Inventory X

King County Active Community Checklist X



63

Recre

ati

on

Facil

ity/

Fit

ness C

en

ters

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

P

oo

ls

A

vailability

Accessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

Parks

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

O

ther

Policie

s &

Pla

nnin

g

A

menitie

s &

Resourc

es

Safe

ty

C

om

munity M

em

bers

Engaged in P

A




X X

National Association of County & City Health Officials (NACCHO) & Tri-County

Health Department in Colorado’s Public Health in Land Use Planning & Community Design

X


Neighborhood Characteristics Questionnaire

(McGuire, J. B., 1997)


X


X X


Neighborhood Walking & Cycling Among Children (Timperio, A. et al., 2004)

X X




X X


Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) Pedestrian Audit

Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS)

Tool X X


64

Recre

ati

on

Facil

ity/

Fit

ness C

en

ters

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

P

oo

ls

A

vailability

Accessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

Parks

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

O

ther

Policie

s &

Pla

nnin

g

A

menitie

s &

Resourc

es

Safe

ty

C

om

munity M

em

bers

Engaged in P

A

Pedestrian Environment Quality Index (PEQI)


Pedestrian Infrastructure Prioritization (PIP)

Decision System (Moudon A. V., 2001)




Perceived Environment Attributes, Residential Location, and Walking (Humpel,

N. et al., 2004)

X X


X X

Physical Activity Community Assessment (California Department of Public Health)

X X X X


X


X X

Preadolescent Environmental Access to Physical Activity Questionnaire, (Erwin, H. E., 2008)

X


X X


X X



65

Recre

ati

on

Facil

ity/

Fit

ness C

en

ters

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

P

oo

ls

A

vailability

Accessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

Parks

A

vailability

A

ccessib

ility

C

onvenie

nt

Location

O

ther

Policie

s &

Pla

nnin

g

A

menitie

s &

Resourc

es

Safe

ty

C

om

munity M

em

bers

Engaged in P

A


Sidewalk Assessment Tool (South Carolina

Prevention Research Center; Williams, J. et al., 2005)


Social & Physical Environmental Supports

for Physical Activity (Addy, 2004) X X X


X

Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St. Louis University School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003)

X X X X

System for Observing Play and Leisure

Activity in Youth (SOPLAY)






X X X X


Walkability Worksheet (Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation)


Sub-Domain

Areasa

Instruments Addressing Sub-Domain

Areab

Proportion of Items with

Objective vs. Subjective Focusc

Items with Universal

Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse

a. Subject/topic area reviewed by specific instruments; b. Across all reviewed instruments , the percentage and number of instruments which have a focus in that sub-domain area; c . For

the items included in this sub-domain area, the percentage and number of items which have an objective focus (i.e., can be universally measured/identified by the untrained or trained user) versus a subjective focus (i.e., qualities heavily dependent on the user’s perception and experience); d. Items that measure or could be adapted to measure universal design features

for multiple user groups; e. Examples of items in each sub-domain area.

Table B.1. Built Environment Infrastructure Detailed Table

66

Roads

Road Type

7% of instruments

(6)

100% objectively-worded items (9)

0% subjectively-worded

items (0)

None

Roadway type: interstate, US route, state

primary, state secondary, local-municipal, private property (Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) Bicyclist Audit)

One-way or two-way; main street: leg, through, right turn only lanes, left turn only lanes; two-

way center turn lane present, two-way center turn lane present. (GIS Analysis Tool for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety - Bicycle Items)

Number of

Traffic Lanes

12% of

instruments (10)

100% objectively-worded

items (11)

0% subjectively-worded items (0)

None

How many lanes of traffic are there in this block? (Senior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool (SWEAT))

Number of lanes on the street/road (Systematic

Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES))

Alignment &

Configuration

10% of

instruments

(8)


items (11)


items (1)

None

Roadway configuration: divided, undivided, one-way; roadway alignment: straight, curvy. (Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool

(PBCAT) Bicyclist Audit) Please indicate your agreement with the following statements about street characteristics for this segment: divided (greater than or equal to 4 lanes), undivided (greater than or equal to 4 lanes), 2 marked lanes, no marked lanes.

(Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St. Louis University School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003))

Sub-Domain

Areasa


Areab




Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





67

Roads (continued)

Road Materials

2% of

instruments (2)


items (2)


None

Roadway surface: concrete, asphalt, gravel, other (Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT))

Slope &

Terrain

5% of

instruments (4)


items (3)


None

Roadway terrain: level, rolling, mountainous, other. (Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT))

Unevenness of terrain (hills, slopes), obstacle to

facilitator: major/medium/minor. (Measure of the Quality of the Environment (MQE))

Width

12% of

instruments (10)


items (7)


None

How would you describe the width of the streets in your neighborhood? (Features of the Neighborhood Environment & Walking (Suminski, R., et al., 2005))

Road width: number of lanes, or actual width; road width along transit corridor. (Pedestrian Infrastructure Prioritization (PIP) Decision System (Moudon A. V., 2001))

Condition

7% of

instruments

(6)


items (2)


items (4)

None

Roadway defects: ruts/bumps/holes, loose material, other. ((Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT))

Condition of road: poor (many bumps / cracks / holes), fair (some bumps / cracks / holes), good (very few bumps / cracks / holes) (Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool)

Sub-Domain

Areasa


Areab




Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





68

Curbs Cuts/Ramps

Availability

20% of

instruments

(16)


items (14)


items (4)

Items generally

accessibility

and universal design-focused.

Identify locations where curb ramps are on the accessible route and/or curbs where there is no ramp. (Federal Transit Administration's ADA

Assessment Sheets) Do all crosswalks have curb-cuts to provide a transition from the sidewalk to the roadway?

(AARP Livable Communities Assessment Tool)

Dimensions

7% of

instruments

(6)


items (21)


items (1)

Items generally

accessibility


The slope of the curb ramp is not more than 8.33%; the slope of each curb flare is not more than 8.33%. (NW Americans with Disabilities Act

& Info Tech Center: Accessible Parking Inventory)

What is the steepest slope of any curb cut or curb ramp on the sidewalk or path? (Health Empowerment Zone Environmental Assessment

Tool (HEZEAT))

Sub-Domain

Areasa


Areab




Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





69

Intersection/Crosswalk

Intersection

Type & Number

7% of

instruments (6)


items (5)


items (2)

None

Intersection type; four-way, t-intersection. (GIS Analysis Tool for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety- Pedestrian Items)

There are many four way intersections in my neighborhood. (Twin Cities Walking Survey

(Schmitz, K., 2003))

Crosswalk

Availability

19% of

instruments (15)


items (19)


items (2)

None

Crosswalks (high): presence and visibility of crosswalks on roads intersecting the segment. (AARP Livable Communities Assessment Tool)

Marked crosswalk (main street/side street): parallel lines, continental, ladder, zebra, other;

(GIS Analysis Tool for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety- Pedestrian Items)

Crosswalk at intersection: is there a crosswalk on the intersecting road to mark a safe area in the road for trail users to cross the intersecting

road? (Path Environmental Audit Tool (PEAT) (Troped, P. J. et al., 2006)

Crosswalk Signage &

Signals

30% of

instruments (24)


items (28)


items (5)

3% (1)

There are crosswalks and pedestrian signals to help walkers cross busy streets in my neighborhood. (Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS) (Saelens, B. E., & Sallis, J. F., 2002))

How much would your walkable opinion change if the following variable was improved? Advance walk signal before motor vehicles, longer walk signal time, audible walk signal. (Community Street Review (New Zealand Transport Agency;

Living Streets Audits))

Sub-Domain

Areasa


Areab




Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





70

Intersection/Crosswalk (continued)

Crosswalk

Features

15% of

instruments (12)


items (11)


items (3)

Items generally accessibility


Crossing islands: along the main leg on which the bicycle travels: is there a right turn lane crossing island? (GIS Analysis Tool for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety - Bicycle Items)

How much would your walkable opinion change

if the following variable was improved? Add traffic island. (Community Street Review (New Zealand Transport Agency; Living Streets Audits)

Crosswalk

Timing

10% of

instruments

(8)

37.5% objectively-worded

items (3)

62.5% subjectively-worded

items (5)

Items generally applicable to people with

disabilities. (e.g., mobility

or visual impairments)

Do the traffic signals provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the street without feeling rushed? (AARP Livable Communities Assessment

Tool) Is there adequate time to cross streets or driveways before cross traffic is given the right of way? (Community Health Environment Checklist (CHEC))

Sub-Domain

Areasa


Areab




Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





71

Traffic Control

Traffic Volume

& Density

28% of

instruments (23)


items (9)


items (20)

None

What is the traffic volume of the street? 5 cars or fewer per minute, 6 cars or more per minute (BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO))

Traffic volume (Neighborhood Observational Checklist (Zenk, S. N. et al., 2007))

Vehicle volume: peak hour volume (Pedestrian Infrastructure Prioritization (PIP) Decision System (Moudon A. V., 2001))

Speed Limit

22% of

instruments (18)


items (19)


None

Speed limit: enter speed limit (Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) Bicyclist Audit))

The speed of traffic on the street I live on is

usually slow (30 mph or less) (Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K., 2003))

Vehicle Traffic

Control

11% of

instruments (9)


items (13)


None

Traffic control devices: devices that slow or restrict traffic flow through an area: roundabouts, ramps or speed humps, chicanes, chokers, kerb extensions or lane narrowing,

traffic signals. (Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES))

Sub-Domain

Areasa


Areab




Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





72

Transportation

Availability

16% of

instruments (13)


items (14)


items (8)

None

Public transportation services in your community (schedule, stops, frequency, trajectory, etc.), 47) long distance transportation services (train, bus, plane) (Measure of the Quality of the Environment (MQE))

Mass transit stop or station: are there one or more buses or mass transit stops or stations located along this segment? (Path Environmental Audit Tool (PEAT) (Troped, P. J. et al., 2006))

Accessibility

9% of

instruments (7)


items (8)


Items generally

accessibility and universal

design-focused.

How accessible are the following types of transportation: your own car/van (not adapted),

your own adapted car/van, buses, taxis, airlines, light rail/subway, paratransit (e.g., call-a-ride) (Facilitators & Barriers Survey/Mobility (FABS/M))

To what extent does your local community have

public transportation with adaptations for people who are limited in their daily activities, such as buses that lower to the ground and chairlifts for wheelchairs; adequate disabled peoples' parking (Home and Community Environment Instrument

(HACE))

Sub-Domain

Areasa


Areab




Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





73

Parking

Availability

26% of

instruments (21)


items (30)


items (6)

None

On-street parking, off-street parking lot spaces. (Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool)

Required number of standard car parking spaces. (NW Americans with Disabilities Act &

Info Tech Center: Accessible Parking Inventory)

Accessibility

7% of

instruments (6)


items (27)


items (2)

Items generally


design-

focused.

Are there accessible parking spaces with adequate widths and aisles? (Community Health Environment Checklist (CHEC))

Required number of van accessible parking spaces: accessible parking space is closest to

accessible entrance. (NW Americans with Disabilities Act & Information Technology Center: Accessible Parking Inventory)

Policy & Planning

Policy &

Planning

2% of

instruments (2)


items (3)


None

Design standards: have standards that set out the number and width of auto travel lanes, bicycle lanes, wide shoulders, parking lanes, buffer strips and sidewalks for each type of

street been adopted? (Active Community Environments (ACE) Checklist (Washington State Dept. of Health, 2007))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Objective vs. Subjective

Focusc

Items with Universal Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse

a. Subject/topic area reviewed by specific instruments; b. Across all reviewed instruments , the percentage and number of instruments which have a focus in that sub-domain area; c . For the items included in this sub-domain area, the percentage and number of items which have an objective focus (i.e., can be universally measured/identified by the untrained or trained

user) versus a subjective focus (i.e., qualities heavily dependent on the user’s perception and experience); d. Items that measure or could be adapted to measure universal design features for multiple user groups ; e. Examples of items in each sub-domain area.

Table B.2. Walkability Detailed Table

74

Sidewalk/Path

Presence

54% of

instruments

(34)

93% objectively-

worded items

(56)

7% subjectively-worded items

(4)

Sidewalk/path may be

used for purposes other

than walking.

Are there sidewalks throughout your community? Is there a sidewalk and a safe crossing between residences and shops? (AARP

Livable Communities Assessment Tool) How many sides of the street have sidewalks? (Irvine Minnesota Inventory)

Sidewalks in neighborhood? (Social & Physical Environmental Supports for Physical Activity

(Addy, 2004)

Accessibility

11% of instruments

(7)

50% objectively-worded items

(6)

50% subjectively-

worded items (6)

Items generally accessibility and universal

design-focused.

Where there are 2 routes (one accessible and

one inaccessible), is there a sign that indicates which route is the accessible route? (Prevention Research Center Healthy Aging Research Network (PRC-HAN) Environmental Audit Tool)

Is/are the access points accessible to wheelchairs? (Path Environmental Audit Tool (PEAT) (Troped, P. J. et al., 2006))

Sidewalk accessibility in your community (summer); sidewalk accessibility in your community (winter). (Measure of the Quality of

the Environment (MQE)) There are bicycle or walking trails in or near my neighborhood that are easily accessible. (St. Louis Environment & Physical Activity Instrument)

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab



Focusc


Sample Itemse




75

Sidewalk/Path (continued)

Materials

21% of instruments

(13)


(15)

17% subjectively-

worded items (3)

None

No items related to preferable materials for

individuals with mobility or

visual impairments.

What is the surface of the path made of?

smooth (asphalt, concrete, wood planks), particulate (gravel, sand, cinders, wood chips), dirt, grass, unable to assess. (BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO))

Path material: what material is the path made

of? (Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES))

Condition &

Maintenance

46% of

instruments

(29)



4% (2)

More items could be modified about surface maintenance to limit

slipping and tripping for individuals with mobility

impairments, and sliding for wheelchair users.

Are the sidewalks well maintained? (surfaces should be flat with only minor cracks and minimal separation between slabs). Note the

location of problem sidewalks. (AARP Livable Communities Assessment Tool)

For walking in your neighborhood, would you say your sidewalks are: well to not well maintained? (Environmental Supports for

Physical Activity Questionnaire (Ainsworth, B. et al., 2002)

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab



Focusc


Sample Itemse




76


Trip/Slipping

Hazards

6% of instruments

(4)


(12)

14% subjectively-

worded items (2)

100% (14)

All items could be applicable to people with

mobility impairments.

I feel safe from trips, slips, and falls.

(Community Street Review (New Zealand Transport Agency; Living Streets Audits))

Surface stable, firm and slip resistant. (Federal Transit Administration's ADA Assessment Sheets)

Poorly-maintained sections of the sidewalk constitute trip hazards? (Prevention Research Center Healthy Aging Research Network (PRC-HAN) Environmental Audit Tool)

Obstructions

30% of

instruments

(19)

50% objectively-

worded items

(24)


(24)

4% (2)

Items could be adapted to examine the effect of

obstructions of sidewalks/ paths for people with

disabilities.

Are any sidewalks obstructed by bushes or overhanging tree branches? Does the community have a program to help older

persons clear snow from the sidewalk in front of their home? (AARP Livable Communities Assessment Tool)

Path obstructions: poles or signs, parked cars, greenery, garbage cans. (Pedestrian

Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool)

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab



Focusc


Sample Itemse




77


Width

29% of instruments

(18)


(21)

9% subjectively-

worded items (2)

None

Items could be adapted to examine what width is

necessary for people with

various disabilities (e.g., width necessary for wheelchair users,

individuals using walkers).

Measure the width of the path or path

segment. (BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO))

Sidewalk width. (Bicycle & Pedestrian Level of Service Performance Measures (Dixon, L. B., 1996))

Width of paved sidewalk (inches). (Senior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool (SWEAT))

Length

3% of

instruments (2)

100% objectively-

worded items (2)


(0)

None

Length of hike & bike trails. (Environmental Design & Pedestrian Travel Behavior (Shriver,

1997) Length (miles or kilometers) of walking facilities (sidewalks and paths). (Cycling Data and Indicator Guidelines (Australian Bicycle Council, 2000))

Continuity

29% of

instruments (18)

84% objectively-

worded items (21)

16% subjectively-

worded items (4)

None

Sidewalk completeness/continuity. (Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool)

How much would your walkable opinion change if the following variable was improved? More direct route. (Community Street Review (New Zealand Transport Agency; Living Streets

Audits))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab



Focusc


Sample Itemse




78


Connectivity

10% of instruments

(6)


(6)

25% subjectively-

worded items (2)

None

Items could consider how people with disabilities and

other users can access

sidewalks/paths, and connect with transportation

and other aspects of the community.

Provide for multimodal connections (bikes,

walks, streets, and/or transit) between neighborhoods to local destinations (parks, schools, businesses), and arterials and to links with regional destinations. (King County Active Community Checklist)

Increased network connectivity, thus providing people with a greater variety of potential routes. (GIS Walkability Index (Leslie, E. et al., 2007))

Slope

38% of

instruments (24)

40% objectively-

worded items (14)

60% subjectively-

worded items

(21)

11% items about cross

slope (4)

All items may be applicable because slope, hilliness, as

well as cross-slope can

seriously impact individuals with mobility disabilities, visual impairments, etc.

What is the slope of the path or path segment: flat or gentle, moderate, steep, unable to

assess. (BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO)) The streets in my neighborhood are hilly, making my neighborhood difficult to walk in. (Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K., 2003))

To what extent does your community have: uneven sidewalks or other walking areas? (Home and Community Environment Instrument (HACE))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab



Focusc


Sample Itemse




79

Walking Safety

Crime

56% of instruments

(35)



1% (1)

Telephones, emergency call boxes accessible to

wheelchair users.

I feel safe walking in my neighborhood, day or

night; violence is not a problem in my neighborhood. (Measurement Properties of Neighborhood Scales (Mujahid, M. et al., 2007))

How safe do you feel when walking? Why do

you feel unsafe? My neighborhood streets are well lit at night. (St. Louis Environment & Physical Activity Instrument)

Traffic

27% of

instruments (17)

3% objectively-

worded items (1)


None

More items could examine

the needs of people with disabilities crossing intersections (see

“countdown for crossing” sub-domain).

There is so much traffic along the street where I live that it is difficult or unpleasant to walk. (St. Louis Environment & PA Instrument)

Threat of traffic to pedestrians. (Association

between Neighborhood Active Living Potential and Walking (Gauvin, L., et al., 2007)

Crossing busy roads is a big problem … not a problem. (Perceived Environment Attributes, Residential Location, and Walking (Humpel, N. et al., 2004))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab



Focusc


Sample Itemse




80

Walking Safety (continued)

Safe

Routes, Rules, & Education

16% of instruments

(10)


(39)


(6)

None

Need for more items addressing safety

education of individuals with disabilities.

Safety patrol: Are walking and biking routes

patrolled for safety by law enforcement officers or trained volunteers? Accident analysis: Are bicycle and pedestrian injuries and crash locations reviewed on a regular basis? (Active Community Environments (ACE) Checklist (Washington State Dept. of Health, 2007))

Is pedestrian safety education incorporated into the school curriculum (by teachers) or provided by a third party (e.g., policy, public health, non-profit)? (National Center for Safe Routes to School (NCSRTS) Parents Survey);

(Safe Routes Startup Checklist (America Walks and CDC PAPRN, 2006))

Pedestrian safety analysis: Does the project identify areas (intersections, streets, small areas) where pedestrian injury collisions have

occurred in or near the project area? (Healthy Development Measurement Tool (HDMT))

Buffer Between Sidewalk/Path

& Road

27% of

instruments (17)

75% objectively-

worded items (18)


(6)

None

There is a grass/dirt strip that separates the streets from the sidewalks in my neighborhood. (Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K., 2003))

Are there trees, grass, or other buffers

between the sidewalk and the street? (Safe Routes Startup Checklist (America Walks and CDC PAPRN, 2006))

Landscaping: buffer (Bicycle & Pedestrian Level of Service Performance Measures (Dixon, L. B.,

1996))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab



Focusc


Sample Itemse




81

Policy & Planning

Policy &

Planning

8% of instruments

(5)


(20)


(0)

None

Land use strategies to increase walkability;

Dedicated bicycle/pedestrian staff: Has the community assigned a staff person to be specifically responsible for pedestrian and bicycle transportation in the planning and/or public works department? (Active Community Environments (ACE) Checklist (Washington

State Dept. of Health, 2007)) Walking and biking circulation plans and transit routes are included as part of each transportation plan. The capital facility plan provides for completion of missing links in the

biking and pedestrian system within a specified time frame. (King County Active Community Checklist)

Safe route to school scheduled or planned.

(Pedestrian Infrastructure Prioritization (PIP) Decision System (Moudon A. V., 2001))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab



Focusc


Sample Itemse




82

Pedestrian Volume & Speed

Pedestrian

Volume

3% of instruments

(2)


(1)

50% subjectively-

worded items (1)

None

Pedestrian volume: sidewalk adequate to

contain pedestrians; pedestrians spilling into street. (Pedestrian Environment Quality Index (PEQI))

Are there high volumes of pedestrian traffic? (Safe Routes Startup Checklist (America Walks

and CDC PAPRN, 2006))

Crossing Speed

& Countdown to Cross

3% of

instruments (2)

100% objectively-

worded items (2)

0% subjectively-

worded items (0)

None

More information needed

on crossing speed needs of persons with disabilities for intersection and crosswalk

signaling.

Crossing speed: faster than 3.5 feet/ second, slower than 3.5 feet/second. (Pedestrian Environment Quality Index (PEQI))

Countdown/scramble. (Pedestrian Environment

Quality Index (PEQI))

Walking Aesthetics & Amenities

Pleasant Place

to Walk

19% of instruments

(12)


(0)

100% subjectively-

worded items (16)

None

There are pleasant walks to do. (Perceived

Access to Supportive Physical Environment (Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J., 2002)

Was your walk pleasant? (Physical Activity Community Assessment (California Department of Public Health)

Not at all attractive … Very attractive neighborhood. (Perceived Environment Attributes, Residential Location, and Walking (Humpel, N. et al., 2004))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab



Focusc


Sample Itemse




83

Walking Aesthetics & Amenities (continued)

Aesthetics

33% of instruments

(21)

37.5% objectively-worded items

(15)

62.5% subjectively-worded items

(25)

None

When walking in my neighborhood there are a

lot of exhaust fumes (such as from cars, buses). There are many interesting things to look at while walking in my neighborhood. (Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K., 2003))

There are many attractive natural sights in my

neighborhood (i.e., landscaping, views). (Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS) (Saelens, B. E., & Sallis, J. F., 2002))

Please indicate which of the following are present in your neighborhood: foul air from

cars of factories? Enjoyable scenery? (Physical Activity in Communities Questionnaire (Eyler, A. A. et al., 2003))

Amenities

17% of

instruments (11)

58% objectively-

worded items (14)

42% subjectively-

worded items (10)

None

Pedestrian system addresses pedestrian needs. (Association between Neighborhood Active Living Potential and Walking (Gauvin, L., et al., 2007))

Are comfort features visible in this segment? (i.e., shade trees, benches, or other types of amenities). (Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St. Louis University School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab



Focusc


Sample Itemse




84

Other

General

Walkability

14% of instruments

(9)


(1)

92% subjectively-

worded items (11)

None How physically difficult would you rate this

segment for walking? (Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES))

There are many places to go within easy walking distance of my home; it is easy to walk to a transit stop (bus, train) from my home.

(Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K., 2003))

How much would your walkable opinion change if the following variable was improved? More direct route, narrow roadway, gentler slope of

kerb crossing … (Community Street Review (New Zealand Transport Agency; Living Streets Audits))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab

Proportion of Items with Objective vs.

Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse

a: Subjec t/topic area reviewed by specific instruments; b: Across all reviewed instruments , the pe rcentage and number of instruments which have a focus in that sub-domain area; c : For the items included in this sub-domain area, the percentage and number of items which have an objective focus (i.e., can be universally measured/identified by the untrained or trained

user) versus a subjective focus (i.e., qualities heavily dependent on the user’s perception and experience); d: Items that measure or could be adapted to measure universal design

features for multiple user groups; e: Examples of items in each sub-domain area

Table B.3. Bikeability Detailed Table

85

Bicycle Lane/Path

Presence

60% of

instruments (21)


items (29)

27.5% subjectively-worded items (11)

Lane/path may

be used for purposes other than bicycling.

Is there a designated bicycle lane in the street? (Senior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool

(SWEAT)) Presence of bike lane/paved shoulder (Department of Transportation Bicycle Compatibility Index (DOT-BCI))

Materials

3% of

instruments (1)


items (0)


None

Regardless of whether or not you own a bike, please indicate the importance of the following

design features in making biking more safe and convenient: colored asphalt for designated bike lanes (Arlington Bike Survey (Troped et al., 2001))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





86

Bicycle Lane/Path (continued)

Condition &

Maintenance

14% of

instruments (5)


items (0)


items (6)

None

How was the surface that you rode on? Cracked or broken pavement (Bikeability Worksheet (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation))

How would you rate the bikeability of this segment? Levelness and condition of bicycle

lane (i.e., heaves, alignment, cracks, broken sections, weeds)? (Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St. Louis University School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003))

Please describe any maintenance programs or

policies that ensure bicycle lanes and shoulders remain usable: routine maintenance, capital improvements. (Bicycle Friendly Communities Campaign (League of American Bicyclists))

Width

11% of

instruments (4)


items (4)


items (0)

None

Is there a white stripe at the edge of the road, with a shoulder? What is the width of the shoulder next to the stripe? (Prevention

Research Center Healthy Aging Research Network (PRC-HAN) Environmental Audit Tool)

Bicycle lane or paved shoulder width (e.g., 4.5') (note: a marked bicycle lane) (Walking & Bicycling Suitability Assessment (WABASA)

(Emery, J. et al., 1998))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





87


Length

9% of

instruments (3)



None

How many miles of bicycle lanes do you have? How many miles of bicycle lanes are in your bicycle master plan? What it the mileage of your total road network? (Bicycle Friendly Communities Campaign (League of American

Bicyclists)) Length of bicycle and hiking trails. (Environmental Design & Pedestrian Travel Behavior (Shriver, 1997))

Continuity

17% of

instruments (6)


items (3)

62.5% subjectively-worded

items (5)

None

Is the bicycle lane continuous between the segments at both ends? (Prevention Research Center Healthy Aging Research Network (PRC-

HAN) Environmental Audit Tool) Path ended abruptly. (Bikeability Worksheet (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation))

How would you rate the continuity of the bicycle lane? (Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St. Louis

University School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003))

Slope

11% of

instruments (4)


items (0)


items (6)

None

Severe grades, moderate grades. (Walking & Bicycling Suitability Assessment (WABASA) (Emery, J. et al., 1998)

There is a steep gradient. (Environmental, Social, and Personal Correlates of Cycling (Titze,

et al., 2007))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





88


Accessibility

9% of

instruments (3)


items (4)


items (0)

Items generally


design-

focused.

There are bicycle or walking trails in or near my neighborhood that are easily accessible. (St. Louis Environment & Physical Activity Instrument)

Please describe initiatives your community has

taken to ensure or improve bicycle access, safety, and convenience at intersections, including bicycle detection, signing, and marking. (Bicycle Friendly Communities Campaign (League of American Bicyclists))

Obstructions

14% of

instruments (5)


items (3)


None

How would you rate the bikeability of this segment? Obstructions (i.e., artificial - cars,

rumble strips, drainage grates - or natural - trees, bushes, rocks)? (Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St. Louis University School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003))

When using on-street facilities, which of the

following are problems you encounter? Vehicles parked in bike lanes (2) Debris in bike lanes/shoulders (Arlington Bike Survey (Troped et al., 2001))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





89

Policy & Planning, Education

Policy &

Planning

11% of

instruments (4)


items (20)


None

Do you have a policy that requires the accommodation of cyclists in all new road

construction and reconstruction and resurfacing? Please include a copy of this legislation or policy. (Bicycle Friendly Communities Campaign (League of American Bicyclists))

Funds for new facilities: are funds dedicated in

the capital facilities plan for adding sidewalks, trail, and bicycle facilities, and for retrofitting existing sidewalks with curb-cuts, existing roads with new bicycle friendly storm water grates, better bicycle/pedestrian connections or other

improvements? (Active Community Environments (ACE) Checklist (Washington State Dept. of Health, 2007))

Promotion

3% of

instruments (1)


items (5)


None

Do you actively promote Bike to Work Day or other bicycle community incentive programs?

What portion of the community workforce do you reach?

Are there community road or mountain bike clubs, bicycle advocacy organizations or racing clubs? (Bicycle Friendly Communities Campaign (League of American Bicyclists))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





90

Policy & Planning, Education (continued)

Training & Education

20% of

instruments (7)


items (19)


None Do you have a bicycle ambassador program that educates community members on local

opportunities for bicycling and answers their questions? (Bicycle Friendly Communities Campaign (League of American Bicyclists))

Are bicycle and pedestrian safety education opportunities such as signs, classes, and written

materials available for both adults and children through the jurisdiction or community-based resources? (Active Community Environments (ACE) Checklist (Washington State Dept. of Health, 2007))

Is bicycle safety education included in routine local activities (e.g., tax renewal, drivers license and testing, or inserts w utility bills each month). (Bicycle Friendly Communities Campaign (League of American Bicyclists))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse





91

Bicycling Safety

Safety Routes &

Enforcement

29% of

instruments (10)


items (26)


items (6)

None Safety patrol: are walking and bicycling routes patrolled for safety by law enforcement officers or trained volunteers? (Active Community Environments (ACE) Checklist (Washington State Dept. of Health, 2007))

Do you use targeted enforcement to encourage cyclists and motorists to share the road safely? (Bicycle Friendly Communities Campaign (League of American Bicyclists))

Crossing

Intersections

20% of

instruments (7)


items (2)


items (9)

None

Bicycle crossing warning (Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool)

Difficult intersections (Walking & Bicycling

Suitability Assessment (WABASA) (Emery, J. et al., 1998))

Driver Behavior

11% of

instruments (5)


items (0)


None

Did drivers behave well? Drove too fast, passed me too closely, did not signal, harassed me, cut me off, ran red lights or stop sign (Bikeability Worksheet (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation))

When using on-street facilities, which of the following are problems that you encounter? vehicles driving in bicycle lanes, vehicles not sharing the roadway (Arlington Bike Survey (Troped et al., 2001))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse

93


Other

General

Bikeability

17% of

instruments (6)


items (6)


None

How would you rate the bikeability of this segment? (Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St. Louis University School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003))

How easy and pleasant is it to bicycle in your neighborhood? (Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K., 2003))

Bicycling

Resources

43% of

instruments (15)


items (20)


items (7)

None

Items could

include

disability-accessible resources

(e.g., restrooms,

etc.).

Bicycle parking facilities: bicycle locker or enclosure; bicycle parking or u- rails; rack or stand (Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES))

Secure bicycle parking at destination, trail

amenities (bicycle racks, benches, restrooms), indoor bicycle storage, showers/locker room at work (Arlington Bike Survey (Troped et al., 2001))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse

93

Table B.4. Recreation Sites and Structures Detailed Table

Recreation Facility/Fitness Centers

Availability

27% of

instruments

(10)


items (14)


items (0)

None

Does your neighborhood have public recreation facilities (i.e., public swimming pools, parks, walking trails, bike paths, recreation centers,

etc.) (Environmental Supports for Physical Activity Questionnaire (Ainsworth, B. et al., 2002))

Is there a recreation center open to the public in your community? (Physical Activity Community

Assessment (California Department of Public Health))

Accessibility

19% of

instruments (7)


items (161)


items (46)

Items generally


design-

focused.

Able to access court? Sports field? Swimming pool? (BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO))

Does your community have a senior center or other recreation center with a variety of active and passive recreation and leisure activities for

older residents? (AARP Livable Communities Assessment Tool)

Many items in instrument measuring accessibility aspects of fitness centers. (Accessibility Instruments Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments (AIMFREE))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse

94


Recreation Facility/Fitness Centers (continued)

Convenient

Location

8% of instruments

(3)

67% objectively- worded items (2)


items (1)

None

For each of these places where you can

exercise, please indicate if it is on a frequently-travelled route (e.g., to and from work) or within a 5-minute drive from your work or home. (Perceived Environmental Variables -- Physical Activity (Sallis, J. F. et al., 1997))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse

95


Pools

Availability

14% of

instruments (5)


items (5)


None

Does your neighborhood have public recreation facilities (i.e., public swimming pools).

(Environmental Supports for Physical Activity Questionnaire (Ainsworth, B. et al., 2002))

Accessibility

8% of

instruments

(3)


items (4)


items (1)

Items generally

accessibility


How many accessible means of entering/exit ing the pool are there? (Accessibility Instruments Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments

(AIMFREE))

Convenient

Location

3% of

instruments

(1)


items (1)


items (0)

None

Convenient facilities: for each of these places where you can exercise, please indicate if it is on a frequently-traveled route or within a 5-

minute drive or 10-minute walk from your work or home: swimming pool. (Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K., 2003))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse

96


Parks

Availability

22% of

instruments (8)


items (7)


None

Are there parks, sports fields, and/or playgrounds in your community? (Physical

Activity Community Assessment (California Department of Public Health))

Park presence (Neighborhood Observational Checklist (Zenk, S. N. et al., 2007))

Accessibility

11% of

instruments

(4)


items (2)


items (2)

Items generally

accessibility


Do public parks provide trails and picnic facilities that are accessible to older people with disabilities? (AARP Livable Communities

Assessment Tool) Can the park be accessed? (BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO))

Convenient

Location

8% of

instruments

(3)


items (2)


items (1)

None

Convenient facilities: For each of these places where you can exercise, please indicate if it is on a frequently-traveled route or within a 5-

minute drive or 10-minute walk from your work or home: public park. (Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K., 2003))

Are there parks, sports fields, and/or playgrounds in your community? Yes, but they

are not within walking distance of my home. (Physical Activity Community Assessment (California Department of Public Health))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse

97


Other

Policies & Planning

5% of

instruments (2)


items (9)


None

Does the plan include an inventory of existing parks, trails, recreation facilities and open

space? Does it identify future needs and include a plan for acquiring/developing these facilities? Are funds dedicated in the operating budget for maintaining parks, trails, etc? (Active Community Environments (ACE) Checklist (Washington State Dept. of Health, 2007))

Amenities &

Resources

46% of

instruments (17)


items (15)


None

Bathrooms, benches, drinking fountains, picnic tables, shade/no shade, shelters,

showers/locker rooms, trash containers. (Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument (Lee, R. E. et al., 2005))

Do standards for trails, public plazas and other public spaces include benches, garbage cans,

and/or other amenities for bicyclists and pedestrians? Do they include water fountains and restrooms? (Active Community Environments (ACE) Checklist (Washington State Dept. of Health, 2007))

Safety

19% of

instruments (7)


items (11)


None

Lighting: is there lighting along this trail or path segment that would provide illumination for trail

users at night? (Path Environmental Audit Tool (PEAT) (Troped, P. J. et al., 2006))

How safe are the public recreation facilities in your community? Do concerns about safety at the public recreation facilities in your community

influence your using them? (Social & Physical Environmental Supports for Physical Activity (Addy, 2004))

Sub-Domain Areasa


Areab


Subjective Focusc


Design Qualitiesd

Sample Itemse

98


Other (continued)

Visibility of

Physically Active

Community Members

30% of

instruments (11)


items (10)


None

Frequently see people walking or exercising. (Perceived Environmental Variables -- Physical

Activity (Sallis, J. F. et al., 1997)) People active in neighborhood. (Social & Physical Environmental Supports for Physical Activity (Addy, 2004))

Instrument

Name

Purpose /

Description Intended

Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc

Instrument Development

Literatured Psychometricse Notes

a. The type of user intended to use an instrument, either a consumer at-large, or a professional who has training influencing perceptions and measurement of the built environment. b. The geographical scale, setting, or community in which the instrument is intended to be used. c. Whether the instrument measures or can measure universal design for multiple user groups. d. Research specific to the design and development of the instrument, or its subsequent use. e. Any information on reliability and validity or other psychometrics with respect to instrument development (NA = not available).

Table C: Instrument Review

99


Series of community

self-assessment surveys that help

identify issues that

may affect independence and

quality of life within

the community, with a specific focus on

older adults.

Consumer Livable

Communities, Older Adults

Yes Kihl, M., Brennan, D.,

Gabhawala, N., List, J., & Mittal, P. (2005).

Livable communities: An

evaluation guide. AARP.

NA Website:

http://www.aarp.org/research/housing-

mobility/indliving/be

yond_50_communities.html#guide

Accessibility Instruments Measuring Fitness and

Recreation Environments (AIMFREE) (Consumer Version)

Evaluates the

accessibility of fitness and

recreation facilities

for people with disabilities.

Consumer Community

Recreation

Yes Rimmer, J. H., Riley, B.,

Wang, B., & Rauworth, A. (2004). Development

and validation of

AIMFREE: Accessibility Instruments Measuring

Fitness and Recreation

Environments. Disability & Rehabilitation,

26(18), 1087-1095.

Intraclass correlations of Rasch

analysis scores ranged from 0.70 (access routes) to 0.97 (swimming

pools).

http://www.aarp.org/research/housing-mobility/indliving/beyond_50_communities.html#guid





Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





10

0

Active Community Environments (ACE) Checklist

(Washington State Dept. of Health, 2007)

Checklist for

communities to self-assess policies,

plans, and funding

with respect to built environment

features, as well as

the strengths and weaknesses of

built environment

features in support of physically active

lifestyles.

Professional with Policy

Focus

Commmunity No NA NA very policy &

planning focused

Websites:

http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/nutritionpa/

Documents/ACEs-

Checklist-09-07-final.doc;

http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/nutritionpa/

our_communities/ac

tive_community_environments/toolkit/de

fault.htm

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility

Guidelines (ADAAG) Checklist for Buildings & Facilities

Surveys places of

public accommodation,

commercial facilities,

and transportation facilities for

compliance with the

new construction and alterations

requirements of Title

II, Subtitle B (Public Transportation) and

Title III of the ADA.

Consumer Accessibility in

Buildings & Facilities

Yes NA One-week, intra-class test-retest

reliability for this scale was .68 for 110 male and female college

students.

http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/nutritionpa/Documents/ACEs-Checklist-09-07-final.doc





http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/nutritionpa/our_communities/active_community_environments/toolkit/default.htm






Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





10

1

Arlington Bike Survey (Troped et al., 2001

Assess physical

activity habits among Arlington

adults and factors

potentially associated with use

of the Minuteman

Bikeway by measuring recent

participation in

recreational physical activity and stages

of change for both

recreational and transportation-

related physical

activity.

Professional Community

Bikeability

No Troped, P. J., Saunders,

R. P., Pate, R. R., Reininger, B., Ureda, J.

R., & Thompson, S. J.

(2001). Associations between self-reported

and objective physical

environmental factors and use of a community

rail-trail. Preventive

Medicine, 32, 191-200.

In the neighborhood environment

scale, higher scores indicate an environment which facilitates

physical activity. “A one-week,

intra-class test-retest reliability score was 0.68 for 110 male and

female college students" (p. 192).

"Pearson's correlation coefficients and k coefficients were generated

to assess the associations between

self-reported and corresponding GIS environmental variables” (p.

193).

Association between Neighborhood Active Living Potential and

Walking (Gauvin, L., et al., 2007)

Measures neighborhood-level

active living

potential as activity friendliness, safety,

and destination

density.

Professional Neighborhood No Gauvin, L., Richard, L., Craig, L., Spivock, M.,

Riva, M., Forster, M.,

Laforest, S., Laberge, S., Fournel, M., Gagnon,

H., Gagne, S., & Potvin,

L. (2005). From walkability to active

living potential: An

“econometric” validation study. American Journal

of Preventive Medicine,

28 (2S2): 126-133.

Internal consistency estimates across neighborhoods sampled

were .80, .77, and .87, indicating

good internal consistency.

Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





10

2

Australian Bicycle Council (2000), Cycling Data and

Indicator Guidelines

Performance

indicators for evaluating

nonmotorized

transportation trends and activities.

Professional Nonmotorized

transport data in communities

No ABC (2000), Cycling

Data and Indicator Guidelines, Australian

Bicycle Council and the

Commonwealth Department of Health

and Aged Care

(www.abc.dotars.gov.au/publications/Guidelines

AndIndicators.doc).

NA Websites:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm63.htm#_T

oc121444868;

http://www.infrastru

cture.gov.au/

Bikeability Worksheet (Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation)

Consumer

assessment of community

bikeability, with

action items of how bikeability can be

improved.

Consumer Community

Bikeability

No RWJF, Pedestrian &

Bicycle Information Center, National

Highway Traffic

Information Center (NHTSA)

NA Brief instrument

focused on overall community

bikeability.

Websites:

http://www.rwjf.org

/files/newsroom/interactives/sprawl/bike

_app.jsp;

http://www.bicycling

info.org/cps/checklis

t.cfm

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm63.htm#_Toc121444868



http://www.rwjf.org/files/newsroom/interactives/sprawl/bike_app.jsp




http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/cps/checklist.cfm



Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





10

3

BRAT Direct Observation (BRAT-DO)

This is a paper-and-

pencil assessment used by observers in

the field to identify

and evaluate the physical, social, and

policy environmental

characteristics of parks.


Parks Review

No Bedimo-Rung, A. L.,

Gustat, J., Tompkins, B. J., Rice, J., & Thomson,

J. (2006). Development

of a Direct Observation Instrument to Measure

Environmental

Characteristics of Parks for Physical Activity.

Journal of Physical

Activity and Health, Supplement 1: S176-

189.

High reliability (defined as having

a high percentage of individual items with greater than or equal to

70% agreement in inter-rater

reliability of individual items) in every domain and geographic

area. High validity (>70%) in all

domains and geographic areas.

Active Living

Research website: http://www.activelivi

ngresearch.org/node

/10650

http://www.activelivingresearch.org/node/10650



Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





10

4

CDC Worksite Walkability Audit Tool

Instrument to assess

the walkability of a workplace.

Consumer Workplace

Walkability

No Dannenberg, A. L.,

Cramer, T. W. & Gibson, C. J. (2005). Assessing

the walkability of the

workplace: A new audit tool. American Journal

of Health Promotion,

20(1): 39-44.

NA

City of

Edmonton CPTED Safety Audit

Enables residents,

local merchants,

schools, community services, police

patrols, and other

stakeholders to get involved in

addressing safety

problems and finding solutions that make

their neighborhoods

safer.

Consumer Community

Safety

No NA NA Website:

http://www.toronto.

ca/safetyaudits/resources.htm


Gauges accessibility of communities,

including public

places, health care, education,

employment,

transportation, housing, social

services, legal

services, recreation, and assistive

technology.

Professional Community Accessibility &

Barriers

Yes Based largely on the CHIEF.

NA

http://www.toronto.ca/safetyaudits/resources.htm



Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





10

5

Community Health Environment Checklist

(CHEC)

Gauges if a building

or facility physical features are

ecologically valid

from the perspective of individuals with

mobility

impairments, and consequently

predicts their

community participation (based

on building/facility

features).


Environment Accessibility

Yes Stark, S., Hollingsworth,

H. H., Morgan, K. A., Gray, D. B. (2007).

Development of a

measure of receptivity of the physical

environment. Disability

& Rehabilitation, 29(2):123-137.

Internal consistency reliability,

using Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95; content validity was accomplished

through: “(1) development of

items from the lived experience of the individual with mobility

impairments, (2) consideration of

each feature’s weight from a ranking study of persons with

mobility impairments, (3) review

and development by an expert panel, and (4) an explicit glossary

and rule book developed to

provide clear guidance to individuals using the instrument to

avoid scoring bias."

Community Street Review (New Zealand

Transport Agency; Living Streets Audits)

A community street

review, where a community street

audit is combined

with a numerical rating system.

Consumer Community

Walking Audit

No Abley, S. Walkability

Scoping Paper, (February 2005), New

Zealand, www.

Abley.com; Abley, S. (July 2006). Walkability

Tools Research:

Variables Collection Methodology.

Information provided on the

design of each of the included measures.

Website:

http://www.levelofservice.com/

An excellent effort to operationalize a

walking audit for

community use and to assign scores

to walking routes.



Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





10

6


A comprehensive

core set of questionnaire items

that measure

perceived trail use (for recreation and

transportation) and

perceived factors that may influence

trail use in different

populations.

Consumer Community

Trail Accessibility

No NA NA Active Living


ngresearch.org/node

/10653

Three different

studies on trail use collaborated to

develop these trail

use measures.


Assesses environmental

barriers encountered

by people with and without disabilities.

Measures the

frequency and magnitudes of

environmental

barriers.

Consumer Community, Workplace,

School, Home

Yes Whiteneck, G., et al. (2004). Quantifying

environmental factors:

A measure of physical, attitudinal, service,

productivity, and policy

barriers. Archives of Physical Medicine and

Rehabilitation, 85:

1324-1335.

Internal consistency reliability using Cronbach’s alpha was 0.76

to 0.93 with the disability sample.

The intra-class correlation coefficient reliability score was

0.93 for the total scale, and 0.77

to 0.89 for the subscales.




Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





10

7

Department of Transportation Bicycle Compatibility

Index (DOT-BCI)

This compatibility

index (BCI) was developed so that

bicycle coordinators,

transportation planners, traffic

engineers, and

others could evaluate the

capability of specific

roadways to accommodate both

motorists and

bicyclists.

Professional Bicycle Level

of Service

No Harkey, D., Reinfurt, D.,

S. J., Knuman, M., & Soton, A. (1998). The

Bicycle Compatibility

Index: A level of service concept. FHWA-RD-

98095. Implementation

Manual. FHWA-RD-98-072. Final Report.

Harkey, D. L., Reinfurt, D. W., & Knuiman, M.

Development of the

Bicycle Compatibility Index. Transportation

Research Record:

Journal of the Transportation Research

Board, Transportation

Research Board of the National Academies,

1636: 13-20.

NA Website:

http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/research/pedbi

ke/98095/

Environmental Assessment of Public

Recreation Spaces (EAPRS) Tool

The instrument

provides a comprehensive

direct observation

assessment of the physical

environments of

parks and playgrounds.

Professional Public

Recreation Assessment

Yes Saelens, B.E., Frank,

L.D., Auffrey, C., Whitaker, R.C.,

Burdette, H.L.,

Colablanchi, N. (2006). Measuring physical

environments of parks

and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument

development and inter-

rater reliability. Journal of Physical Activity and

Health, 3 (S1): S190-

S207.

Inter-rater kappa values were

measured for all items. 66% of the items had reliability values

in the good-excellent range of a

high percent of agreement.

Website:

http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/resea

rch/div/psychology/f

aculty-labs/saelens/eaprs.h

tm;

Active Living

Research website:

http://www.activelivingresearch.org/node

/10651

http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/research/div/psychology/faculty-labs/saelens/eaprs.htm









Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





10

8

Environmental Design & Pedestrian Travel Behavior

(Shriver, 1997)

Instrument assesses

the effects of neighborhood

structural

characteristics on walking patterns as

mediated by

personal characteristics.

Professional Neighborhood No Shriver, Katherine.

(1997). Influence of environmental design

on pedestrian travel

behavior in four Austin neighborhoods.

Transportation Research

Record. 1578: 64-75.

NA

Environmental Supports for

Physical Activity Questionnaire (Ainsworth, B. et al., 2002)

Assess community

residents'

perceptions about social and physical

environmental

factors that may support or restrict

active lifestyles.

Consumer Neighborhood

Environment

No Kirtland, K. A., Porter,

D. E., Addy, C. L., Neet,

M. J., Williams, J. E., Sharpe, P. A., Neff, L.

J., Kimsey, C. D., &

Ainsworth, B. E. (2003). Environmental

measures of physical

activity support perception versus

reality. American

Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(4):323-

331.

"Spearman rhos ranged from 0.28

to 0.56; Kappa statistics ranged

from -0.07 to 0.25 for the total sample. Agreement was highest

for access to malls for physical

activity (κ = 0.25)."

Active Living

Research website:


/10645

Environmental, Social, and Personal Correlates of

Cycling (Titze, et al., 2007)

Determine the

association between context-specific

built-environment,

social environment, and personal-level

factors with biking

for transportation.

Professional

University

Community

No Titze, S., et al (2007)

Environmental, social, and personal correlates

of cycling for

transportation in a student population.

Journal of Physical

Activity and Health, 4: 66-79.

Five of the ten scales had a test-

retest reliability of 0.72, and four subscales had an agreement

between 0.64 and 0.48. Individual

test-retest reliabilities for items showed agreement between 0.89

and 0.62. Cronbach's alpha of the

subscales ranged between 0.39 and 0.66.




Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





10

9

Facilitators & Barriers Survey/ Mobility

(FABS/M)

An assessment tool

for examining how environmental

factors affect

participation in the environment, and

how accessibility of

the environment affects this

participation.

Consumer Home &

Community

Yes NA NA Website:

http://enablemob.wustl.edu/Research/re

search.htm

Features of the Neighborhood Environment & Walking

(Suminski, R., et al., 2005)

Assesses features of

the neighborhood environment based

on four main

environmental features: functional,

safety, aesthetic,

destinations.


Environment

No Suminski, R. et al

(2005). Features of the neighborhood

environment and

walking by U.S. adults, American Journal of

Preventive Medicine,

28(2), p. 149-155.

Intra-class correlations for the

questionnaire ranged from 0.85 to 0.94, and the Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient of internal consistency

was 0.83.

Federal Transit

Administration's ADA Assessment Sheets

A checklist to assist

with application of

the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) Titles II and

III to buildings and facilities subject to

the law.

Professional Accessible

Transit

Yes NA NA

http://enablemob.wustl.edu/Research/research.htm



Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





11

0

Gainesville Bicycle & Pedestrian Level of Service

Performance Measures (Dixon, L. B., 1996)

Bicycle and

pedestrian level of service (LOS)

performance

measures evaluate the degree of bicycle

and pedestrian

accommodation within the roadway

and transportation

corridor.


Bicycle & Pedestrian

Level of

Service

No Dixon, L.B. (1996).

Bicycle and pedestrian level of service

performance measures

and standards for congestion management

systems Transportation

Research Record. 1538: 1-9.

Survey development but not

psychometric information could be located.


These indices help to identify intersection

crossings and legs

that should be the focus of bicycle

safety assessment.

Professional Pedestrian & Bicycle

Community

Safety

No Carter, D.L., Hunter, W.W., Zegeer, C.V.,

Stewart, J.R., and

Huang, H.F. (2006). Pedestrian and bicyclist

intersection safety

indices: Final Report, Federal Highway

Administration,

Washington, DC, Report FHWA-HRT-06-125,

2006.

Results gathered through field observations (obtained by

reviewing video recordings of

intersections) did not show statistically-significant differences.

Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





11

1

GIS Analysis Tool for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety-

Pedestrian Items

These indices help to

identify intersection crossings and legs

that should be the

focus of bicycle safety assessment.

Professional Pedestrian &

Bicycle Community

Intersections

No Carter, D.L., Hunter,

W.W., Zegeer, C.V., Stewart, J.R., and

Huang, H.F. (2006).

Pedestrian and bicyclist intersection safety

indices: Final Report,

Federal Highway Administration,

Washington, DC, Report

FHWA-HRT-06-125, 2006.

Results gathered through field

observations (obtained by reviewing video recordings of

intersections) did not show

statistically-significant differences.


This GIS measures

the following four measures of the

built environment

that may influence walking: dwelling

density,

connectivity, land use mix, and net

retail area.

Professional Community No Leslie, E., Cerin, E.,

duToit, L., Owen, N., and Bauman, A. (2007).

Objectively assessing

‘walkability’ of local communities: Using GIS

to identify the relevant

environmental attributes. In Lai PC and

Mak SH (Eds). GIS for

Health and the

Environment: Development in the Asia

Pacific Region. Springer

Verlag, Berlin: 90-104.

NA

Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





11

2

Health Empowerment Zone Environmental

Assessment Tool (HEZEAT)

Measures the

outdoor environment land use and

pathway

characteristics to identify community

areas problematic

for a person with a physical disability.


Path & Outdoor Onsite

Accessibility

Yes NA NA Website: http://uic-

chp.org/CHP_A5_HEZ_01.html

Healthy Development

Measurement Tool (HDMT)

Evaluates the extent

to which land use

plans, projects, or policies will advance

human health.


Health

Indicator

No Program on Health,

Equity, and

Sustainability, San Francisco Department of

Public Health.

(September 2007). Eastern Neighborhoods

Community Health

Impact Assessment (ENCHIA): Final Report:

58-62.

(http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/ENCHIA_Final_Re

port.high_resolution.pdf

)

NA Website:

http://www.thehdmt

.org/background.php


Helps school systems identify and

address potential

environmental, health, and safety

problems before

they arise, and access EPA

recommendations

and requirements quickly and

efficiently.

Professional School Environmental

Barriers

No NA NA Website: http://www.epa.gov

/schools/healthyseat

/index.html

http://uic-chp.org/CHP_A5_HEZ_01.html



http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/ENCHIA_Final_Report.high_resolution.pdf




http://www.thehdmt.org/background.php

http://www.thehdmt.org/background.php

http://www.epa.gov/schools/healthyseat/index.html



Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





11

3

Home and Community Environment Instrument

(HACE)

Prototype self-report

measure of a person’s home and

community

environments that may influence

participation levels.

Consumer

Home &

Community Environment

Yes Keysor, et al. (2005).

Development of the home and community

environment (HACE)

instrument. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine.

37: 37-44.

Cohen’s Kappa index of inter rater

reliability: .20-1.0; Good validity evidenced through the fact that

participants in private homes

versus multi-unit complexes described differences in home and

community mobility factors.

Irvine

Minnesota Inventory

Through in-person

observations, this

tool measures a wide range of built

environment

features that are potentially linked to

active living,

especially walking.


No Day, K., Boarnet, M.,

Alfonzo, M., & Forsyth,

A. (2006). The Irvine-Minnesota Inventory to

Measure Built

Environments: Development. American

Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 30(2):144-152.

68% of the variables had >70%

agreement among the three

observers.

Active Living

Research website:


/10634

King County

Active Community Checklist

The checklist is

designed to be used

in making planning decisions that

encourage active

lifestyles.

Professional/Planner

Community,

transit

stations, urban surroundings,

transportation

system

No NA NA




Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





11

4

League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly

Communities Campaign

Through a

comprehensive audit involving

engineering,

education, encouragement,

enforcement,

evaluation, and planning efforts, this

tool aims to yield a

holistic picture of a communities work to

promote bicycling.

Professional Community No NA NA Website:

http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org

/Images/bfc_part_ii

_application_2007.pdf


Evaluates the

environment’s influence on the

accomplishment of a

person’s daily activities in relation

to his/her abilities

and limits.

Consumer Community

Environment

Yes NA NA

Measurement

Instrument for Urban Quantities Related to Walkability

This instrument is

intended to use

operational definitions and

measurement

protocols to look at subtler urban design

qualities believed to

be related to walkability

Professional

and consumer

Urban Design

Qualities and

Environments

No Ewing, R., et al (2006).

Identifying and

measuring urban design qualities related to

walkability. Journal of

Physical Activity and Health, 3(suppl 1), p.

223-240.

The inter-rater reliability of scene

ratings ranged from 0.344 to

0.584. Total variance for each urban design quality ranged from

1.06 to 1.52.

Active Living

Research website:


/10635

http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/Images/bfc_part_ii_application_2007.pdf








Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





11

5

Measurement Properties of Neighborhood Scales (Mujahid,

M. et al., 2007)

Study objectives

were to develop neighborhood scales

that represent

features of neighborhoods

potentially important

to for cardiovascular disease risk,

to assess the

psychometric and econometric

properties of such

scales, and to examine how

individual-level

variables and neighborhood

socioeconomic

indicators are related to these

scales.


Environment

No Mujahid, M. S., Diez

Roux, A. V., Morenoff, J. D., & Raghunathan, T.

(2007). Assessing the

Measurement Properties of Neighborhood Scales:

From Psychometrics to

Econometrics. American Journal of Epidemiology,

165(8): 858-967.

Test-retest reliability coefficients

(within each domain) ranged from 0.60 (walking environment) to

0.88 (safety).

American Association for Public

Opinion Research response rate

for test-retest reliability was 80.0%.

Neighborhood reliabilities = 0.64 or greater for census tracts

Neighborhood reliabilities = 0.78

or greater for census clusters “Activities with neighbors” scale

showed the lowest reliability.

General “good convergent validity”

(p. 63).

Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





11

6

National Association of County & City Health Officials

(NACCHO) & Tri-County Health Department in Colorado’s

Public Health in Land Use Planning & Community Design

The instrument is

meant to assist local public health

agencies (LPHAs) in

their review of applications for new

development or

redevelopment plans in their communities

so as to provide long

term protection of public health.


Land Use & Community

Design

Planning

No Roof, K., & Maclennan,

C. (July/August 2008). Tri-County Health

Department in Colorado

Does More Than Just Review a Development

Plan. Journal of

Environmental Health, 71(1):31-34.

NA Website:

http://www.naccho.org/topics/hpdp/land

_use_planning/LUP_

Toolbox.cfm

National Center for Safe Routes to School (NCSRTS)

Parents Survey

The survey is

intended to collect student travel data

and parental

attitudes about students traveling to

and from school.

Consumer Community,

School Commute

No NA NA Website:

http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources

/evaluation_parent-

survey.cfm

http://www.naccho.org/topics/hpdp/land_use_planning/LUP_Toolbox.cfm




http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/evaluation_parent-survey.cfm




Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





11

7

Neighborhood Characteristics Questionnaire (McGuire, J. B.,

1997)

The four scales of

the instrument describe residents’

perceptions of street

crime and life quality, social

relationships and

networks among neighbors,

attachment to the

neighborhood and neighborhood

disorder.

Consumer Neighborhood No McGuire, Jacqueline

Barnes. 1997. The reliability and validity of

a questionnaire

describing neighborhood characteristics relevant

to families and young

children living in urban areas. Journal of

Community Psychology.

25 (6): 551-566.

Reliability was established by

internal consistency and validity by relationships with other

psychosocial factors, and

comparison with observations of the neighborhood. Each of the

scales had good internal

consistency (0.85, 0.82, 0.81, 0.77), and all items had strong

correlations with the totals. Two of

the scales good internal consistency (trash 0.80; social

disorder 0.89), and one was

acceptable (0.66). The social cohesion scale had a lower internal

consistency (0.56).

Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS) (Saelens, B. E.,

& Sallis, J. F., 2002)

The NEWS assesses perceived residential

density, land use

mix, street connectivity,

infrastructure for

walking/cycling, neighborhood

aesthetics, and

traffic and crime safety.

Consumer Neighborhood No Saelens, B., et al (2003). Neighborhood

based differences in

physical activity: An environment scale

evaluation. American

Journal of Public Health. 93(9), p. 1552-1558.

Brownson, R., et al. (2004). Measuring the

environment for

friendliness towards physical activity: A

comparison of the

reliability of 3 questionnaires.

American Journal of

Public Health. 94(3), p. 473-483.

Most of the NEWS subscales had test–retest reliability above 0.75,

showing a high level of

consistency. Across the various constructs, reliability coefficients

were nearly always at the

moderate level or higher. The ICC values for the 8 scales ranged

from 0.41 for “street/walking

environment” to 0.93 for “land use mix—diversity.”

Active Living Research website:

http://www.activelivi

ngresearch.org/node/10649




Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





11

8

Neighborhood Observational Checklist (Zenk, S. N. et al.,

2007)

Examine the

association between perceived and

objective

characteristics of neighborhood

environment to

neighborhood walking among older

adults.


Environment

No Zenk S.N., Shulz A.I.,

Mentz G, House J.S., Gravlee C.C., Miranda

P.Y., Miller P., Kannan

S. (2007). Inter-rater and test–retest

reliability: Methods and

results for the neighborhood

observational checklist.

Health & Place, 13:452-465.

For the inter-rater reliability gold

standard method, 42.7% of items fell between 0.6 and 1.0, 44.94%

between 0.2 and .59, and 12.36%

below 0.19. For the inter-rater reliability paired observer method,

38.95% of items fell between 0.6

and 1.0, 44.21% between 0.2 and 0.59, and 16.84 below 0.19. For

test-retest reliability, 61.29% of

items fell between 0.6 and 1.0, 33.33% between 0.2 and 0.59,

and 5.38% were below 0.19.

Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire (NPAQ) (Giles-

Corti, B. et al., 2006)

Based on two other

surveys: International

Physical Activity

Questionnaire and Active Australia

Survey. The survey

measures frequency and duration of

walking within and

outside of the neighborhood and

additional physical

activities.

Consumer Neighborhood No Gilles-Corti, B., et al.

(2006) Development of a reliable measure of

walking within and

outside the local neighborhood: RESIDE’s

Neighborhood Physical

Activity Questionnaire. Preventive Medicine, 42,

p. 455-459.

Aggregate reliability of total

walking was excellent (ICC 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.94), total MET

min of physical activity was 0.82

(95% CI: 0.73, 0.89), and the estimate of sufficient physical

activity for health was fair to good

(k = .67).

Neighborhood Walking &

Cycling Among Children (Timperio, A. et al., 2004)

To examine

associations

between perceptions of local

neighborhood and

walking and cycling among children.

Consumer Neighborhood No Timperio, A. et al.

2004. Perceptions about

the local neighborhood and walking and cycling

among children.

Preventive Medicine. 38: 39-47.

Parental perceptions of their local

neighborhood had a test-retest

reliability between 0.60 and 0.91. Children's perceptions of their local

neighborhood had a test-retest

reliability of 0.72-0.85.

Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





11

9

NW Americans with Disabilities Act & Info Tech Center:

Accessible Parking Inventory

This tool can be

used to assess parking areas in

terms of how well

they correspond with ADA guidelines.


Parking

Yes NA NA


The survey focuses on participation and

mobility and

addresses 6 domains in the activity/

participation

component of the ICF (self-care,

mobility, domestic

life, interpersonal interactions and

relationships, major

life areas, and community, social,

and civic life.)

Components of participation were

addressed for each

domain.

Consumer Home & Community

Yes Gray, D., et al. (2006). Participation

survey/mobility:

psychometric properties of a measure of

participation for people

with mobility impairments and

limitations. Archives of

Physical and Medical Rehabilitation, 87: 189-

197.

Self-care had highest internal consistency (.91). Community,

social and civic life domains

followed at .85. The test-retest reliability (Pearson r) of all

domains were .77 or higher. The

internal consistency and stability of temporal items was moderate

for frequency (.64 and .80) and

time taken in activity (.70 and .80). Evaluative components have

good to high internal consistency

and reliability. Health-related limitations have high internal

consistency and moderate

reliability.

Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





12

0

Path Environmental Audit Tool (PEAT) (Troped,

P. J. et al., 2006)

The focus of the

instrument is on the trail/path

environment, but

several items also assess the

surrounding

neighborhood environment. Items

fall into three

general content areas: design

features, amenities,

and maintenance/ aesthetics.

Professional Trail/Path

Environment and Proximal

Neighborhood

Yes Troped, P., et al.

(2006). Development and reliability and

validity testing of an

audit tool for trail/path characteristics: The

Path Environment Audit

Tool (PEAT). Journal of Physical Activity and

Health, 3(suppl 1), p.

s158-s175.

Inter-observer reliability and

validity was assessed. Fifteen of 16 primary amenity items had k-

values > 0.49 ("moderate") and all

had observed agreement > 81%. Seven binary design items had k-

values ranging from 0.19 to 0.69

and three of 5 ordinal items had ICCs > 0.52. Only two of seven

aesthetics/maintenance items had

moderate ICCs. Observed agreement between PEAT and GPS

items was > 0.77; k-values were

> 0.57 for 7 out of 10 comparisons.

This instrument also

provides pictures, which provides for

easier grading/

comparison.

Active Living


ngresearch.org/node

/10652


(PBCAT) Bicyclist Audit

Intended to improve

walking and bicycling safety by

collecting details

associated with crashes between

motor vehicles and

bicyclists.

Consumer Community,

Road, Sidewalk

No NA NA Website:

http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/pbcat/i

ndex.cfm;

Pedestrian and

Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) Pedestrian Audit

Intended to improve

walking and

bicycling safety by collecting details

associated with

crashes between motor vehicles and

pedestrians.

Consumer Community,

Road, Sidewalk

No NA NA Website:

http://www.walkingi

nfo.org/facts/pbcat/index.cfm;




http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/pbcat/index.cfm






Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





12

1


The tool is designed

to measure elements of the built and

natural environment

with respect to pedestrian activity.

Professional Built and

Natural Pedestrian

Environment

No Clifton, K., Smith, L., &

Rodrigues, D. (2007). The development and

testing of an audit for

the pedestrian environment.

Landscape and Urban

Planning, 80(1-2), p. 95-110.

Nearly all questions had moderate

to high reliability, with higher reliability questions tending to be

more objective in nature. The

subjective questions had lower reliability, but were highly

correlated with the objective

questions.

Active Living


ngresearch.org/node

/10641

Pedestrian Environment

Quality Index (PEQI)

Assess the quality of

the physical

pedestrian environment and

inform pedestrian

planning needs.

Professional Neighborhood:

Streets &

Intersections

No San Francisco

Department of Public

Health, Environmental Health Sections; Cyndy

Comerford

Not yet reported. Website:

http://www.sfphes.o

rg/HIA_Tools/PEQI_Methods_2008.pdf


Assesses areas with deficient pedestrian

environment based

on checklist of roadway and

network

characteristics.

Professional Community No 1000 Friends of Oregon, 1993. Making the Land

Use Transportation Air

Quality Connection: The Pedestrian Environment,

volume 4A, Prepared by

the Parsons Brickerhoff Quade and Douglas,

Inc., with Cambridge

Symantics, Inc. and Calthorpe Associates.

Reliability (for 3 raters) = 0.95 Intraclass correlations = 0.87

Website: http://ntl.bts.gov/D

OCS/tped.html

Additional

Literature:

Parks, J. R. & Schofer, J. L. (July

2006).

Characterizing neighborhood

pedestrian

environments with secondary data.

Transportation

Research Part D: Transport and

Environment, 11(4):

250-263.




http://www.sfphes.org/HIA_Tools/PEQI_Methods_2008.pdf



http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/tped.html

http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/tped.html

Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





12

2

Pedestrian Infrastructure Prioritization (PIP) Decision

System (Moudon A. V., 2001)

Prioritizes

environmental factors and related

policies to be

considered in pedestrian

infrastructure

investments.


No Moudon, Anne Vernez.

2001. Targeting Pedestrian

Infrastructure

Improvements: A Methodology to Assist

Providers in Identifying

Suburban Locations with Potential Increases in

Pedestrian Travel.

Washington State Department of

Transportation, Report

# WA-RD 519.1.

From the development literature:

“[PIP, PLI1, & PLI2] provide [state and local jurisdictions] with an

objective and scientifically valid

method for prioritizing locations that will yield the highest benefits

in terms of increased pedestrian

volumes, improved pedestrian safety (Roth 1994), and support of

transit (Replogle 1992).”

Website:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/repo

rts/fullreports/519.1

.pdf

Pedestrian Location Identification (PLI) – Tool 1 (Moudon A. V.,

2001)

Identifies areas with potential for

pedestrian travel

(walking) through analysis of land use

type, intensity, and

proximity using Census and aerial

photography data.

Professional Community Walkability

No Moudon, Anne Vernez. 2001. Targeting

Pedestrian

Infrastructure Improvements: A

Methodology to Assist

Providers in Identifying Suburban Locations with

Potential Increases in

Pedestrian Travel. Washington State

Department of

Transportation, Report No. WA-RD 519.1.

Has been verified in the field. Website: http://www.wsdot.w

a.gov/research/repo

rts/fullreports/519.1.pdf

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/519.1.pdf








Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





12

3

Pedestrian Location Identification (PLI) – Tool 2

(Moudon A. V., 2001)

Identifies areas with

potential for pedestrian travel

(i.e., walking)

through analysis of land use type,

intensity, and

proximity using a series of GIS

routines.


Walkability

No Moudon, Anne Vernez.

2001. Targeting Pedestrian

Infrastructure

Improvements: A Methodology to Assist

Providers in Identifying

Suburban Locations with Potential Increases in

Pedestrian Travel.

Washington State Department of

Transportation, Report

No. WA-RD 519.1.

Has been verified in the field. Website:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/repo

rts/fullreports/519.1

.pdf

Perceived Access to Supportive Physical Environment

(Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J., 2002)

The study was designed to examine

associations

between access to recreational facilities

and participation in

recreational physical activity by the SES

of the area of

residence. Perceptions of the

neighborhood

environment were assessed using 11

items measured on a

five-point scale (strongly agree to

strongly disagree).

Consumer Neighborhood Physical

Environment

No Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R. (2002)

Socioeconomic status

differences in recreational physical

activity levels and real

and perceived access to a support physical

environment. Preventive

Medicine, 35, p. 601-611.

The 11 items were analyzed using principal component analysis with

varimax rotation. Five items with a

communality of less than 0.25 were removed from the analysis.

Three clear factors emerged (Table

1): (a) neighborhood attractiveness, safety and interest;

(b) social support for walking

locally; and (c) traffic and traffic hazards. Scales were created from

the variables in each factor

(Cronbach’s alpha: ranging from 0.65 to 0.83) and recoded into

quartiles.





Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





12

4

Perceived Environment Attributes, Residential

Location, and Walking (Humpel, N. et al., 2004)

Examines the

association of perceived

environmental

attitudes with walking for 4

purposes: general

neighborhood walking, walking for

exercise, walking for

pleasure, & walking to get to/from

places.

Professional/Planner

Neighborhood

Walkability

No Humpel, N., Neville, O.,

Iverson, E., & Bauman, A. (2004). Perceived

Environment Attributes,

Residential Location, and Walking for

Particular Purposes.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine,

26(2):119-125.

Intraclass correlation and 95%

confidence interval for the total sample were 0.92 (0.88–0.95).

Spearman’s correlation coefficients

were also computed for all items and produced similar results.

Validity has yet to be established.

Perceived Environmental Variables -- Physical Activity

(Sallis, J. F. et al., 1997)

Measure perceived

physical environments that

influence physical

activity.

Consumer Homes,

Neighbor-hoods, &

Frequently

Traveled Routes

No Sallis, J. F., Johnson, M.

F., Calfas, K. J., Caparosa, S., Nichols, J.

F. (1997). Assessing

Perceived Physical Environmental Variables

that may influence

physical activity. Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport.

68(4): 345-351

Test-retest reliabilities:

0.89 for home equipment, 0.68 for neighborhood,

0.80 for convenient facilities.

Home equipment and convenient facilities were correlated with self-

reported physical activity.

Physical Activity Community

Assessment (California Department of Public Health)

Determines what is

available in a

community and what is needed to access

quality physical

activity opportunities.

Consumer Community No NA NA Website:

http://www.network

-toolbox.net/HandPA

Assessment.asp

http://www.network-toolbox.net/HandPAAssessment.asp




Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





12

5

Physical Activity in Communities Questionnaire (Eyler, A. A. et

al., 2003)

Identifies who walks,

how much they walk, where people

are most likely to

walk, and personal/ environmental

barriers to walking.

Consumer Communities No Eyler AA, Brownson RC,

Bacak SJ, Housemann RA. (2003). The

epidemiology of walking

for physical activity in the United States.

Medicine & Science in

Sports & Exercise, 35(9):1529-1536.

BRFSS questions included in

survey demonstrate reliability from 0.42-0.61. Data for other

questions were not reported.

Physical Activity Resource

Assessment (PARA) Instrument (Lee, R. E. et al., 2005)

Assesses the type,

features, amenities,

and quality of a variety of physical

activity resources.

Professional Neighborhood

Physical

Activity Resources

No Lee, R.E., Booth, K.M.,

Reese-Smith, J.Y.,

Regan, G., & Howard, H.H. (2005). The

Physical Activity

Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument:

Evaluating features,

amenities and incivilities of physical activity

resources in urban

neighborhoods. International Journal of

Behavioral Nutrition and

Physical Activity, 2(13).

Reliability tests of a 10% overlap

showed good reliability (r > .77).

Website:

http://grants.hhp.co

e.uh.edu/undo/assesstools/Assess_tools.

htm;

Active Living

Research website:


/10638

Preadolescent Environmental Access to Physical Activity Questionnaire,

(Erwin, H. E., 2008)

Determines environmental

influences on

children's access to physical activity.

Consumer Home, Neighborhood,

Convenient

Facilities, School

No Erwin, H. E. (2008). Test-retest reliability of

a preadolescent

environmental access to physical activity

questionnaire. Journal

of Physical Activity and Health, 5(S1): S62-S72.

The reliability of the neighborhood environment measure was 0.86.

The kappa values were all

significant, ranging from 0.42-1.0. Percent agreement between items

from two different trials ranged

from 81-100%.

http://grants.hhp.coe.uh.edu/undo/assesstools/Assess_tools.htm







Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





12

6

Prevention Research Center Healthy Aging Research

Network (PRC-HAN) Environmental Audit Tool

Produce detailed

quantitative and qualitative

information on

community-scale and street-scale

factors associated

with physical activity in older adults.

Professional Community- Yes NA Interrater Reliability:

Predominant Land Use - Residential (Y/N): 0.75;

Predominant Land Use - Parking

Lots or Garages (Y/N): -0.02; Sidewalks Present: 0.61;

Width of Sidewalks: -0.04

Websites:

http://depts.washington.edu/harn/tools/

29nov05_final_audit

_tool.pdf; http://depts.washin

gton.edu/harn/

Promoting Active

Communities Assessment (Michigan Department of Community

Health)

Evaluates a

community’s built

environment, policies, and

programs related to

promoting and supporting physical

activity.

Consumer Communities Yes Bassett, E.M. (2008).

The Promoting Active

Communities Award: Improvement of

Michigan's Self

Assessment Tool. Journal of Physical

Activity and Health,

5(1):4-18.

Preliminary findings from a CDC

evaluation indicate that the PAC is

reliable instrument for describing built environments (e.g., existence

of infrastructure.) The tool is a

less reliable gauge of policy environments (e.g., divergence

between expert and lay

evaluations of plans). An in-depth evaluation is still in progress.

Websites:

http://mihealthtools.

org/communities/default.asp?tab=previe

w;

http://mihealthtools.

org/communities/PA

C_PrintCopy.pdf

Safe Routes Startup

Checklist (2006) (America Walks and CDC PAPRN)

Identifies priorities

for improving

foundations, conditions, and

behaviors that will

support safer walking and

bicycling.

Consumer Safe Routes to

School

No NA NA Website:

http://www.america

walks.org/ http://www.feetfirst.

info/school/AW-

PAPRN-SchoolStartupCheckl

ist.doc/view

http://depts.washington.edu/harn/tools/29nov05_final_audit_tool.pdf




http://depts.washington.edu/harn/

http://depts.washington.edu/harn/

http://mihealthtools.org/communities/default.asp?tab=preview




http://mihealthtools.org/communities/PAC_PrintCopy.pdf



http://www.americawalks.org/

http://www.americawalks.org/

http://www.feetfirst.info/school/AW-PAPRN-SchoolStartupChecklist.doc/view





Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





12

7


Assesses street-level

environmental features that may

influence walking

among seniors.


Senior Walkability

Assessment

Yes Cunningham, et al.

2005. Developing a reliable senior walking

environmental

assessment tool. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine. 29

(3): 215-217.

Inter-rater reliability: acceptable

agreement for 67% of items. Almost 80% of the sidewalk and

street life items were reliable.

Objective items tended to be more reliable than subjective variables.

Items assessing buildings and

destinations were also less reliable than other categories. Validity has

not been established.

Website:

http://www.ohsu.edu/public-

health/employees/fa

culty/michael.shtml

Sidewalk Assessment Tool (South Carolina

Prevention Research Center; Williams, J. et al., 2005)

Assesses sidewalk

maintenance based on levelness,

blockages,

cleanliness, and surface condition.


Sidewalks

No Williams, J. et al.

(2005). Development and use of a tool for

assessing sidewalk

maintenance as an environmental support

of physical activity.

Health Promotion Practice, 6: 81-88.

The overall kappa coefficient for

the three raters was 0.61. The overall reliability was substantial

among the raters.

Slips Assessment Tool (SAT) (British Health

and Safety Commission)

Assesses the human

factors issues associated with slip,

trip and fall (STF)

accidents and thereby help reduce

the numbers of

these incidents.

Professional Workplace

Pedestrian Slipping Risks

No Mason, S., & Health,

Safety and Engineering Consultants Ltd. (2003).

Development of a

methodology for the assessment of human

factors issues relative to

trips, slips, and fall accidents in the offshore

industries.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr065.pdf

NA Additional literature:

Boorman, C. J. (2006). Evaluation

of the slips

assessment tool (SAT) -

analysis of user

questionnaires. HSL/2006/76.

http://www.hse.gov.

uk/research/hsl_pdf/2006/hsl0676.pdf

http://www.ohsu.edu/public-health/employees/faculty/michael.shtml






http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2006/hsl0676.pdf



Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





12

8

Social & Physical Environmental Supports for

Physical Activity (Addy, 2004)

Evaluates perceived

social and environmental

supports for physical

activity and walking.

Consumer Community

No Addy, C.L., Wilson,

D.K., Kirtland, K.A., Ainsworth, B.E., Sharpe,

P., & Kimsey, D. (2004).

Associations of perceived social and

physical environmental

supports w/ physical activity and walking

behavior. American

Journal of Public Health. 94(3): 440-443

Test–retest reliabilities ranged

from 0.42 to 0.74 for neighborhood variables and from

0.28 to 0.56 for community

variables, with modest coefficients between perceptions

and objective data.


Measures physical

activity and environmental

influences on

physical activity.

Professional Community No Brownson, R.C., Chang,

J.J., Eyler, A.A., Ainsworth, B.E.,

Kirtland, K.A., Saelens,

B.E., et al. (2004). Measuring the

environment for

friendliness toward physical activity: A

comparison of the

reliability of three questionnaires.

American Journal of

Public Health, 94(3), 473-483.

High proportion of questions

showed moderate reliability (n=12). An earlier version of this

instrument was tested for

reliability in a sample of ethnically diverse women ≥40 years old.

Validity has not been established.

Active Living


ngresearch.org/node

/10644




Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





12

9

Street-Scale Analytic Audit Tool (St. Louis University

School of Public Health, Brownson, R. C. et al., 2003)

Measures features of

the street-scale environment related

to recreational- and

transportation-based physical activity.

Professional Community No Brownson, R. C.,

Hoehner, C. M., Brennan, L.K., Cook, R.

A., Elliott, M.B., &

McMullen, K.M. (2004). Reliability of two

instruments for auditing

the environment for physical activity.

Journal of Physical

Activity and Health,1:189-207.

For the 8 questions designed to

broadly capture environmental attributes. 4 items showed

observed agreement ≥75%.

Authors called it “reasonably reliable,” and feel “unsure of its

ability to fully capture variation or

its correlation with behavior.” It is also noted that “reliability might

differ across other types of

neighborhoods” (e.g. high income versus low income).

Active Living

website: http://www.activelivi

ngresearch.org/node

/10616

System for Observing Play

and Leisure Activity in Youth (SOPLAY)

This is a direct

observation tool for

assessing physical activity and

associated

environmental characteristics in

free play and leisure

settings (e.g., recess and lunch at school).

Professional Community No McKenzie, T. L.,

Marshall, S. J., Sallis, J.

F., & Conway, T. L. (2000). Leisure-Time

Physical Activity in

School Environments: An Observational Study

Using SOPLAY.

Preventive Medicine, 30(1):70-77.

Interobserver agreements:

Area accessibility = 95%

Usability = 97% Presence of supervision = 93%

Presence of organized activity =

96% Provision of equipment = 88%

Authors concluded that all

interobserver agreements and intraclass correlations met

acceptable criteria (IOA=80%,

R=.75) for reliable assessment. No field-based validity study has

been conducted, but validity of the

activity codes used in the instrument has been established

through heart rate monitoring in

previous research.

Active Living

Research website:


/10642







Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





13

0

System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities

(SOPARC)

This is a direct

observation tool for assessing the

potential for physical

activity and environmental

characteristics in

park and recreation settings.

Professional Park/

Recreation Settings

No McKenzie, T.L., Cohen,

D.A., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., &

Golinelli, D. (2006).

System for Observing Play and Recreation in

Communities

(SOPARC): Reliability and feasibility

measures. Journal of

Physical Activity & Health, 3(S1):S208-

S222.

Interobserver agreement scores

for area contexts (i.e., usable, accessible, supervised, organized,

equipped) exceeded 94%.

Construct validity of the activity codes used by SOPARC has been

established through heart rate

monitoring.

Active Living


ngresearch.org/node

/10642

Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental

Scan (SPACES)

Measures the

physical environmental

factors that may

influence walking and cycling in local

neighborhoods.

Professional Neighborhood No Pikora, T. J., Bull, F. C.

L., Jamrozik, K., Knuiman, M., Giles-

Corti, B., & Donovan, R.

J. Developing a reliable audit instrument to

measure the physical

environment for physical activity.

(October 2002).

American Journal of Preventive Medicine,

23(3):187-194.

Inter-rater reliability:

21 of 67 items scored “excellent” (kappa >75%)

27 of 67 items scored “fair-good”

(kappa = 0.4-0.75) Intra-rater reliability

17 of 71 items scored “excellent”

(kappa >75%) 47 of 71 items scored “fair-good”

(kappa >75%)

Active Living


ngresearch.org/node

/10617







Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





13

1

Tool to Assess Sidewalk Maintenance (University of

South Carolina Prevention Research Center, Williams, J. et

al., 2005)

Assesses sidewalk

maintenance based on levelness,

blockages,

cleanliness, and surface condition.

Consumer Neighborhood No Williams, J. et al (2005)

Development and use of a tool for assessing

sidewalk maintenance

as an environmental support of physical

activity. Health

Promotion Practice, 6: 81-88.

The overall kappa coefficient for

the three raters was 0.61. The overall reliability was substantial

among the raters.

Traffic and Health in

Glasgow Questionnaire (Ogilvie, D. et al., 2008)

Studies the

correlates of active

travel and overall physical activity in

deprived urban

neighborhoods in Glasgow, Scotland.

Consumer Local

Environment

(including green spaces,

amenities,

routes, and roads)

No Ogilvie, D, et al.

(2008). Perceived

characteristics of the environment associated

with active travel:

development and testing of a new scale.

International Journal of

Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5(32).

The test-retest reliability of

individual items was comparable

with that of items in other published scales (intra-class

correlation coefficients 0.34-0.7;

weighted Cohen's kappa 0.24-0.59). The overall summary

neighborhood score had

acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.72) and test

retest reliability ICC 0.73.

Twin Cities Walking Survey (Schmitz, K.,

2003)

Studies the

relationship between the built

environment,

walking, and overall physical activity.

Professional Neighborhood No PI: Ann Forsyth, Cornell

University

FORTHCOMING:

Forsyth, A., Oakes, J. M., & Schmitz, K. H.

(2009). Test–retest

reliability of the Twin Cities walking survey.

Journal of Physical

Activity and Health.

In progress. (Literature is in

publication).

Active Living


ngresearch.org/node

/10619




Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





13

2

Violence-Related Assessment Tool for School

Environments (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention)

A compendium of

assessment tools measuring aspects

of youth violence.

Includes attitude and belief,

psychosocial and

cognitive, behavioral, and

environmental

assessments. Environmental

assessments include

many community and

family-related

assessments, such as fear of crime and

community

resources.

Consumer (though varies by

assessment

tool)

School, Family,

& Community

No NA NA Website:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yva

ctivites.htm


The checklist helps user determine if a

community is

walkable, as well as suggests what steps

to take if it is not.

Consumer Community No Developed by the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation, but no

literature available on instrument development

procedure.

NA

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvactivites.htm



Instrument

Name

Purpose /


Usera

Geographical

Scaleb Universal

Designc





13

3

Walking & Bicycling Suitability Assessment

(WABASA) (Emery, J. et al., 1998)

Assesses the suitability of a community’s local streets for walking

and bicycling.

Consumer Community No Emery, J., Crump, C., &

Bors, P. Reliability and Validity of Two

Instruments Designed

to Assess the Walking and Bicycling Suitability

of Sidewalks and Roads.

(September/October 2003). American Journal

of Health Promotion,

18(1):38–46.

Emery, J., Crump, C., &

Hawkens, M. (2007). Formative evaluation of

AARP's Active for Life

campaign to improve walking and bicycling

environments in two

cities. Health Promotion Practice, 8(4):403-414.

Walking Suitability Assessment

Intercoder reliability: Overall walking suitability

assessment, r = 0.79.

Transportation experts’ overall ratings, r = 0.73.

Overall criterion-related validity

correlation, r = 0.58. Criterion-related validity for

individual variables ranged from

r = 0.15 to 0.84, with half the variables demonstrating validity

correlations > r = 0.60.

Biking Suitability Assessment Intercoder reliability:

Overall biking suitability

assessment, r = 0.9. Transportation experts’ overall

ratings, r = 0.77.

Overall criterion-related validity correlation, r = 0.62.

Criterion-related validity fir

individual variables ranged from r = 0.004 to 0.82, with over one-

third of the variables

demonstrating validity correlations > r = 0.60.

Website:

http://www.unc.edu/~jemery/WABSA/in

dex.htm

Active Living

Research website:


/11614

http://www.unc.edu/~jemery/WABSA/index.htm






134

Table D: Glossary

Accessibility: The facility/services can be used or accessed by persons with disabilities and/or other

health conditions, and/or individuals of limited income.

Availability: Presence of a built environment feature (e.g., transportation, parking).

Bicycle, policy & planning: Policies and/or plans, from a governmental or organizational standpoint, for bicycle path/plan construction, signage, enforcement, broader bicycle transportation development plans, and other community resources which facilitate bicycle activity.

Bicycling safety, driver behavior: How motorist actions (e.g., cutting off bicyclists, passing bicyclists too close) and observance of safety laws affect bicyclist safety.

Bicycle lane/path, accessibility: The extent to which a bicycle lane/path can be used or accessed by

persons with disabilities and/or other health conditions.

Bicycle lane/path, continuity: Whether the bicycle lane/path has an unbroken connection between two points.

Bicycle lane/path, length: Total length, distance of the bicycle lane/path.

Bicycle lane/path, materials: Materials used in the bicycle lane/path surface type (e.g., asphalt,

gravel, etc.)

Bicycle lane/path, obstructions: Temporary or permanent obstructions, affecting the bicycle path/lane for riding.

Bicycle lane/path, presence: Presence/absence of a bicycle lane or path within a community or specified geographic region.

Bicycle lane/path, slope: Bicycle lane/path slope, gradient, or hills.

Bicycle lane/path, surface condition: General condition of the bicycle lane/path surface.

Bicycle lane/path, width: Measured width of the bicycle lane/path. Bicycle traffic: Bicyclist volume and speed.

Bicycling, training & education: Education efforts for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, with respect to bicycling opportunities and bicycling safety in the community.

Bicycling, promotion: Community efforts to publicize and encourage more bicycling.

Bicycling resources: Presence of bicycling facilities (e.g., bicycle racks, bicycle storage) and amenities (e.g., benches and restrooms on bicycle trails). Bicycling safety, crossing intersections: Bicyclist perceptions of intersection crossing difficulty;

presence of adequate signage indicating a difficult crossing.

135

Bicycling safety, safety routes & enforcement: The availability of safe bicycling routes and whether safe bicycling and motorist laws and practices are enforced.

Buffer between sidewalk/path and road: Strip of grass, dirt, landscaping which separates the sidewalk/path from the road.

Built environment infrastructure policy & planning: Policies, plans, and dedicated funds to develop a community’s infrastructure related to roads, intersections, crosswalks, traffic flow, public transportation, and parking (e.g., design standards for the number and width of auto travel lanes, wide shoulders, and parking lanes.)

Consumer: Individual without prior training in built environment-related measurement.

Convenience: Offers a convenient location, operating hours, etc., for a consumer’s schedule,

geography, etc.

Crosswalk, features: Other features sometimes associated with a crosswalk, such as a crossing island.

Crosswalk, presence: The presence or absence of a crosswalk. Crosswalk, signage and signals: Traffic signals and signs for crosswalks, some specifically as

pedestrian crossing aids. Crosswalk, timing: The timing for pedestrians to cross at signalized intersections, or whether or not the timing provided is perceived as adequate to cross.

Curb cuts/ramps, accessibility: Factors making the curb cut/ramp more usable for persons with disabilities and/or other health conditions (e.g., textured curb cut pavement for persons with visual impairments, an absence of obstructions).

Curb cuts/ramps, availability: Presence or absence of a curb cut or ramp in a specific geographic area.

Curb cuts/ramps, dimensions: Specific measurements of the curb cuts, ramps.

General bikeability: General measure of how friendly an area is for bicycling. This includes the ease of the cycling experience, as well as how attractive and pleasant the experience is.

General walkability: General perceptions of friendliness or ease/difficulty of an area for walking.

Intersection, type & number: Count of intersections, and type of intersection (e.g., four-way, 5-way

star, t-intersection). Level of service: Quality of service in a transportation infrastructure, usually rated from worst to best.

Objective item focus: An objective item refers to a quality that can be universally measured/identified by the untrained or trained user (e.g., the presence/absence of a path/sidewalk or a choice of sidewalk/path materials (gravel, concrete, asphalt, etc.)

136

Parking, accessibility: Whether parking is accessible to individuals with disabilities (e.g., close to facility entrance, ample space for accessible vehicles and wheelchairs).

Parking, availability: Presence or absence of automobile parking in a specific geographical area.

Parks, accessibility: Parks which can be used or accessed by persons with disabilities and/or other

health conditions, and/or which can be accessed by individuals of limited income; may include transportation accessibility options for people with disabilities.

Parks, availability: Presence/absence of a park in a specific community/geographical location.

Parks, convenience: Parks located on convenient transportation routes, having convenient operating hours, etc.

Pedestrian crossing speed and countdown: Pedestrian crossing speed across an intersection, and the amount of time allowed to cross an intersection, due to traffic and pedestrian signals and timers.

Pedestrian volume: Pedestrian traffic, or number of pedestrians crossing an intersection or walkway,

per hour in a specific geographic area.

Pools, accessibility: Pools which can be used or accessed by persons with disabilities and/or other health conditions.

Pools, availability: Presence/absence of a pool in a specific community/geographical location.

Pools, convenient location: Pools near to convenient public transportation routes, having convenient

operating hours, etc.

Professional: Individual who has been part of a professional training or educational program that would influence one’s perceptions and measurement of the built environment.

Recreation areas/fitness centers, accessibility: The recreational facility or fitness center can be used or accessed by persons with disabilities and/or other health conditions.

Recreation areas/fitness centers, amenities & resources: Resources including bathrooms, benches, drinking fountains, picnic tables, shelters, trash containers that facilitate a comfortable and enjoyable recreational experience.

Recreation areas/fitness centers, availability: Presence/absence of recreational facilities (e.g., tennis courts, basketball courts, other courts, baseball fields) and fitness centers.

Recreation areas/fitness centers, convenient location: The recreational facility or fitness center

offers a convenient location, operating hours, etc.

Recreation areas/fitness centers, policies & planning: Policies and planning related to future development plans and allocated funds for recreational facilities and sites.

Recreation areas/fitness centers, safety: Perceived safety in a recreational area and presence of crime deterrent resources, such as adequate lighting or call boxes.

137

Road, alignment & configuration: How a road fits to its landscape, through straight and curvy sections; whether the road/street is divided, undivided, one-way.

Road, condition: Current state of road maintenance and surface quality (e.g., smoothness or bumps, cracks, holes, etc.)

Road, materials: Matter comprising the road surface, e.g., concrete, asphalt, gravel, etc.

Road, number of traffic lanes: Number of traffic lanes in a road.

Road, policy & planning: Policies or plans with respect to auto travel lanes, parking, etc.

Road, slope/terrain: Whether the road slope or grade is measurable, or can be categorized as mountainous, hilly, flat terrain, etc.

Road, type: Type of street/road for interstate, urban, or rural uses (e.g., highways, urban streets, rural roads).

Road, width: The measurable width of a designated road. Safe routes, rules, & education: Routes which are patrolled by law enforcement officers or trained volunteers, and pedestrian safety education incorporated into school or community curriculum.

Sidewalk/path accessibility: The sidewalk/path can be used or accessed by persons with disabilities.

Sidewalk/path condition & maintenance: Current condition and regular cleaning, repair, and

maintenance of sidewalk/path surfaces.

Sidewalk/path connectivity: The extent to which sidewalks/paths permit or restrict movement to different sidewalks/paths, public transportation, and/or other destinations throughout the community.

Sidewalk/path continuity: Direct sidewalk/path to a destination, without gaps in that trajectory.

Sidewalk/path, length: Sidewalk/path length, measured in feet, inches, meters, etc.

Sidewalk/path material: Type of material used in sidewalk or path construction (e.g., aspha lt, dirt, grass).

Sidewalk/path obstructions: Permanent or temporary obstacles blocking the sidewalk/path.

Sidewalk/path, presence: Presence/absence of a sidewalk or path within a community or specified geographic region.

Sidewalk/path slope: Slope, cross-slope, or hilly terrain of sidewalks/paths. Sidewalk/path, trip/slipping hazards: Sidewalk/path surface and/or condition contributing to perceived trip and/or slipping hazards.

Sidewalk/path, width: Sidewalk/path width, measured in feet, inches, meters, etc.

138

Sidewalk/path, safety routes, rules, & education: Safety routes, rules, patrol, and education for pedestrians; pedestrian-motorist crash analysis.

Speed limit: Posted speed limit on a specific road, or the perceived speed of traffic. Subjective item focus: A subjective item refers to a quality heavily dependent on the user’s

perception and experience, therefore precluding the establishment of a uniform measurement tool across users (e.g., perceptions of safety or environment aesthetics).

Traffic volume, density: Average daily traffic, peak hour traffic volume.

Transportation, accessibility: Whether the transportation provided is accessible to individuals with disabilities and convenient to the community at-large (e.g., convenient hours, ample number of buses/trains servicing an area).

Transportation, availability: The presence or absence of public transportation options. Vehicle traffic control: Devices used to slow or restrict traffic flow through an area (e.g.,

roundabouts, speed humps, chicanes, chokers, traffic signals, etc.)

Visibility of physically-active community members: Visibility of individuals active (e.g., walking, bicycling) in the community.

Walking aesthetics: Presence of appealing (e.g., public art, nice landscaping) and unappealing features (e.g., graffiti, litter, air and noise pollution, unattended dogs) in the walking community.

Walking amenities: Benches, water fountains, trash bins, washrooms, and other resources that facilitate a comfortable enjoyable walking experience.

Walking, pleasant place to walk: Whether the walking environment is viewed as pleasing for

aesthetic or other reasons. Walking policies/ planning: Policies, plans, and dedicated funds to improve a community’s walkability.

Walking safety, buffer between sidewalk/path and road: An area separating the path/sidewalk from the road, which can help protect pedestrians from motorists.

Walking safety, crime: Walking safety issues that are due to crime or lack of crime deterrents (e.g., adequate lighting, emergency call boxes, neighborhood crime watch). Walking safety, traffic: Walking safety issues that are due to heavy traffic flow, unsafe

intersections, etc.