4.6 Article

Street network measures and adults' walking for transport: Application of space syntax

Journal

HEALTH & PLACE
Volume 38, Issue -, Pages 89-95

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.12.009

Keywords

Urban design; Physical activity; Active living; Built environment; Destination; Walking

Funding

  1. National Heart Foundation of Australia [100878]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [569940]
  3. NHMRC [569940, 1004900, 1003960]
  4. VicHealth
  5. NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Healthy Liveable Communities [1061404]
  6. VicHealth through Community Indicators Victoria
  7. Australian Prevention Partnership Centre [9100001]
  8. Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The street network underpins the walkability of local neighborhoods. We examined whether two street network measures (intersection density and street integration from space syntax) were independently associated with walking for transport (WT); and, to what extent the relationship of street integration with WT may be explained by the presence of destinations. In 2003-2004, adults living in Adelaide, Australia (n=2544) reported their past-week WT frequency and perceived distances to 16 destination types. Marginal models via generalized estimating equations tested mediation effects. Both intersection density and street integration were significantly associated with WT, after adjusting for each other. Perceived destination availability explained 42% of the association of street integration with WT; this may be because of an association between street integration and local destination availability - an important element of neighborhood walkability. The use of space syntax concepts and methods has the potential to provide novel insights into built-environment influences on walking. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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