4.1 Article

Urban form and older residents' service use, walking, driving, quality of life, and neighborhood satisfaction

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 45-52

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.4278/0890-1171-19.1.45

Keywords

neighborhood environment; urban; suburban; female; elders; walking; driving; quality of life; controlled study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. This study explored the relationship between pedestrian-friendly urban form as reflected in new urbanism design guidelines, and neighborhood service use, walking, driving, quality of life, and neighborhood satisfaction among older women. Design. A cross-sectional survey compared residents of census tracts similar in demographic characteristics but differing in urban form. Setting. The setting was urban and suburban areas of Portland, Oregon. Subjects. The sample consisted of 372 females living alone over age 70 in six census tracts; 133 (36%) completed surveys. Measures. The New Urbanism Index rated the physical features of respondents' neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Resident Survey assessed travel modes and neighborhood satisfaction. The Quality of Life Index measured resident well-being. The Dartmouth COOP Functional Health Charts measured health status. Group comparisons were made with t-tests and regression analysis. Results. Although limited by the cross-sectional design, the study showed that new urbanism partially explained several differences in service use and activity: distance to a grocery store (r(2) change 11, p = 001), number of services used within 1 mile, from home (r(2) change = .06, p = .007), number of walking activities (r(2) chang, = .08, p = .001), number of services accessed by walking (r(2) change = .14, p = .000), and number of services accessed by driving (r(2) change = .05, p = .001). Conclusions. Traditional urban neighborhoods with mixed services and good pedestrian access were associated with increased walking among older residents.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available