4.6 Article

Neighbourhood correlates of average population walking: using aggregated, anonymised mobile phone data to identify where people walk

Journal

HEALTH & PLACE
Volume 77, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102892

Keywords

Walkability; Neighbourhood; Mobile phone data; Health promotion

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) DECRA fellowship [DE200100359]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia [APP2008702]
  3. Australian Research Council [DE200100359] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using mobile phone mobility data, this study explores the relationship between neighbourhood physical and social characteristics and residents' walking behaviour. The findings indicate that factors such as street fragmentation, retail density, and economic disadvantage are associated with lower levels of walking activity.
Understanding and monitoring socio-spatial patterns of population walking mobility can inform urban planning and geographically targeted health promotion strategies aimed at increasing population levels of physical ac-tivity. In this study we use aggregated, anonymous mobile phone mobility data to examine the association be-tween neighbourhood physical and social characteristics and residents' weekly walking behaviour across 313 neighbourhoods in a large metropolitan region of Queensland, Australia. We find that residents in neighbour-hoods that are highly fragmented by streets with speed limits above 50 kmph, residents in neighbourhoods with high retail density and those living is economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods walk fewer kilometres and minutes on average per week than their counterparts. These findings can inform urban planning policy on the minimum specifications required in newly developing neighbourhoods and provide targets for retro-fitting features into existing neighbourhoods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available