Background
Methods
Neighborhood selection
Recruitment and participants
Countries | All countries | Australia | Belgium | Brazil | Colombia | Czech Republic | Denmark | Hong Kong | Mexico | New Zealand | Spain | United Kingdom | United States of America |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cities
| Adelaide | Ghent | Curitiba | Bogotá | Olomouc Hradec Králové | Aarhus | Hong Kong | Cuerna-vaca | North Shore; Waitakere; Wellington; Christchurch | Pam-plona | Stoke on Trent | Baltimore, Maryland; Seattle, Washington | |
Overall N
1
| 14309 | 2650 | 1166 | 699 | 1000 | 512 | 642 | 984 | 677 | 2033 | 904 | 843 | 2199 |
Age:
| |||||||||||||
Mean | 42.3 | 44.5 | 42.7 | 41.1 | 41.1 | 37.0 | 38.9 | 42.8 | 42.1 | 40.6 | 38.7 | 43.0 | 45.1 |
SD | 12.9 | 12.3 | 12.6 | 13.2 | 14.5 | 15.0 | 13.9 | 12.6 | 12.6 | 12.3 | 14.2 | 13.3 | 11.0 |
% | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |
Sex:
| |||||||||||||
Male | 42.9 | 36.0 | 47.9 | 46.9 | 36.3 | 38.3 | 43.3 | 39.1 | 44.6 | 42.0 | 44.8 | 43.9 | 51.8 |
Female | 57.1 | 64.0 | 52.1 | 53.1 | 63.7 | 61.7 | 56.7 | 60.9 | 55.4 | 58.0 | 55.2 | 56.1 | 48.2 |
Education:
| |||||||||||||
Did not complete high school | 18.1 | 23.8 | 4.4 | 28.8 | 36.5 | 21.3 | 7.5 | 40.3 | 43.5 | 5.0 | 7.5 | 34.0 | 1.6 |
High school graduate or some college | 38.0 | 30.0 | 34.6 | 32.5 | 41.7 | 49.0 | 44.5 | 22.9 | 28.8 | 56.9 | 34.7 | 52.0 | 33.4 |
College graduate or more | 43.9 | 46.3 | 61.0 | 38.8 | 21.8 | 29.7 | 48.0 | 36.8 | 27.6 | 38.1 | 57.8 | 14.1 | 65.0 |
Marital Status:
| |||||||||||||
Not married or living with a partner | 40.4 | 43.5 | 26.6 | 42.1 | 46.9 | 45.9 | 34.6 | 41.5 | 35.3 | 35.8 | 47.0 | 55.2 | 37.9 |
Married or living with a partner | 59.6 | 56.5 | 73.4 | 57.9 | 53.1 | 54.1 | 65.4 | 58.5 | 64.7 | 64.2 | 53.0 | 44.8 | 62.1 |
Measures
Versions of the neighborhood environment walkability scale
General overview
Subscales (original and adapted)
Original NEWS/NEWS-A subscale and items | Differences / issues | Proposed solution |
---|---|---|
Residential density
| Original scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting ‘none’. This yields positive density scores even in absence of residential buildings and sometimes similar density scores for environments with different densities. | Recode original response scale ranging from 1 to 5 to 0 = none; 1 = a few; 2 = some; 3 = most; 4 = all |
Belgium used a 3-point (none; some; many) rather than 5-point scale (none; a few; some; most; all) on all subscale items. | The Belgian response “some” will be given a value of 2 (as in the recoded 5-point scale), while “many” will be assigned a value of 3, corresponding to “most” on the recoded 5-point scale. | |
1. Detached single-family residences | None | NA |
2. Townhouses or rows of 1–3 stories houses | Hong Kong combined this item with item 3. | This item and item 3 have similar density weights (12 and 10). The Hong Kong item will be given a mid-weight of 11. For all other sites, with the exception of the UK which does not have item 3, the item with the highest rating (between item 2 and 3) will be chosen to be included in the summary residential density score and given a weight of 11. If items 2 and 3 have equal ratings, one of them will be included in the calculations and given a weight of 11. |
The UK will have this item weighted by 11. | ||
3. Apartments or condos with 1–3 stories | Hong Kong combined this item with item 2. | See comments for item 2. |
The UK combined this item with item 4. | For the UK site, see comment for item 4 below. | |
4. Apartments of condos with 4–6 stories | The UK combined this item with item 3. | Items 3 and 4 have very different weights (12 and 25, respectively). We will weigh this UK item by the mid-point of the two original weights (18.5), with the assumption that the two types of apartments have similar prevalence. |
5. Apartments or condos with 7–12 stories | None | NA |
6. Apartments or condos with >12 stories | Australia, Belgium, Denmark, the Czech Republic, and the UK did not include it because high-rise residential buildings were judged to have very low prevalence. Hong Kong modified this item to read “Apartments or condos with 12–20 stories”. | No action is required as such buildings have low prevalence in the study sites that omitted this item. The mean score on this item would have been close to 0 and, thus, not adding to the overall density score. Hong Kong modified this item to distinguish residential buildings with 12–20 stories from those with 20–50 stories, which are common in Hong Kong but not in other study sites. |
7. Apartments or condos with >20 stories | Hong Kong added this item to the subscale. | This item will be given a weight of 100. |
Land use mix – access
| ||
1. Stores within easy walking distance | None | NA |
2. Many places within walking distance | Belgium and the UK did not include this item. | For these two countries, the CFA and summary score on this subscale will be based on 2 rather than 3 items. Using data from other countries, ascertain the correspondence between scores based on the 2- and 3-item subscales. |
3. Easy to walk to a transit stop | None | NA |
Street connectivity
| ||
1. Short distance between intersections | Belgium did not include this item but had an additional item “four-way intersections” that is part of the NEWS street connectivity subscale | Include the additional connectivity item in the Belgian CFA model and, using data from countries that had all three street connectivity items, ascertain the comparability of the two 2-item street connectivity scores and a connectivity score based on an item common to Belgium and other countries (item 2). |
2. Many alternative routes | Australia did not include this item but had an additional item “four-way intersections” that is part of the NEWS street connectivity subscale | Include the additional connectivity item in the Australian CFA model and, using data from countries that had all three street connectivity items, ascertain the comparability of the two 2-item street connectivity scores and a connectivity score based on an item common to Australia and other countries (item 1) |
Infrastructure and safety for walking and cycling
| ||
1. Sidewalks | None | NA |
2. Cars separating sidewalks and traffic | Hong Kong did not include this item. Belgium combined it with item 3. | For these countries, the CFAs and summary score on this subscale will be based on a smaller number of items. Using data from other countries, ascertain the correspondence between scores on the subscale based on different combinations of items. |
3. Grass/dirt separating sidewalks and traffic | Hong Kong did not include this item. Belgium combined it with item 3. | As above (see item 2). |
4. Street lights | None | NA |
5. Walkers and bikers easily seen | Australia, Brazil, and Hong Kong did not have this item. | As above (see item 2) |
6. Crosswalks and pedestrian signals | None | NA |
Aesthetics
| ||
1. Trees | Australia included a slightly different item from the NEWS: “trees give shade”. | Include the additional item in the Australian CFA model and, using data from countries that had this additional item, ascertain the comparability of the Australian 4-item version of the subscale with the original 4-item version. |
2. Many interesting things to look at | Belgium and the UK did not include this item. | For these two countries, the CFA and summary score on this subscale will be based on 3 rather than 4 items. Using data from other sites, ascertain the correspondence between scores based on the 3- and 4-item subscales. |
3. Many attractive natural sights | None | NA |
4. Attractive buildings/homes | None | NA |
Traffic safety/hazards
| ||
1. Heavy traffic along nearby streets | Brazil and the Czech Republic included a slightly different item from the NEWS: “heavy traffic along the street” | Use the slightly different item as a substitute for item 1. Using data from other countries that included all relevant items, ascertain the correspondence between scores based on the common subscale and these two countries’ version of the subscale. |
2. Slow traffic speed on nearby streets | Australia, Belgium, and the Czech republic included a slightly different item from the NEWS: “slow traffic speed on the street” | Use the slightly different item as a substitute for item 2. Using data from other sites that included all relevant items, ascertain the correspondence between scores based on the common subscale and these three sites’ version of the subscale. |
3. Speeding drivers | Australia did not include this item. | The Australian CFA and summary score on this subscale will be based on 2 rather than 3 items. Using data from other countries, ascertain the correspondence between scores based on the 2- and 3-item subscales. |
Safety from crime
| ||
1. High crime rate | None | NA |
2. Unsafe to walk during the day | None | NA |
3. Unsafe to walk at night | None | NA |
Few cul-de-sacs
| None | NA |
Physical barriers to walking
| Some differences in examples of type of barriers to walking. | NA |
Socio-demographic characteristics
Data analyses
Site-specific measurement models of the NEWS/NEWS-A
Comparability of various versions of NEWS-A subscales
Results
Country-specific measurement models of the NEWS/NEWS-A
A priori models | Final models | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IPEN country | χ2(df) | CFI | RMSEA (95% CI) | SRMR | χ2(df) | CFI | RMSEA (95% CI) | SRMR |
Australia | 593 (161) | 0.934 | 0.041 (0.037, 0.044) | 0.040 | 534 (139) | 0.934 | 0.042 (0.039, 0.046) | 0.044 |
Belgium | 914 (202) | 0.856 | 0.056 (0.052, 0.059) | 0.058 | 462 (141) | 0.907 | 0.045 (0.040, 0.049) | 0.055 |
Brazil | 340 (181) | 0.906 | 0.046 (0.040, 0.056) | 0.055 | 249 (155) | 0.927 | 0.040 (0.031, 0.049) | 0.053 |
Colombia | 351 (202) | 0.928 | 0.044 (0.036, 0.051) | 0.068 | 262 (175) | 0.956 | 0.036 (0.026, 0.044) | 0.065 |
Czech Republic | 453 (201) | 0.897 | 0.053 (0.046, 0.059) | 0.066 | 357 (171) | 0.915 | 0.049 (0.042, 0.056) | 0.060 |
Denmark | 491 (202) | 0.901 | 0.048 (0.043, 0.053) | 0.052 | 316 (179) | 0.948 | 0.035 (0.029, 0.041) | 0.047 |
Hong Kong | 247 (142) | 0.952 | 0.041 (0.032, 0.049) | 0.044 | 248 (144) | 0.953 | 0.040 (0.032, 0.048) | 0.045 |
Mexico | 630 (202) | 0.862 | 0.056 (0.050, 0.062) | 0.068 | 369 (177) | 0.915 | 0.046 (0.039, 0.053) | 0.065 |
New Zealand | 722 (202) | 0.896 | 0.043 (0.040, 0.047) | 0.045 | 501 (173) | 0.930 | 0.037 (0.033, 0.041) | 0.042 |
Spain | 716 (202) | 0.876 | 0.057 (0.052, 0.061) | 0.065 | 512 (174) | 0.911 | 0.050 (0.045, 0.055) | 0.060 |
United Kingdom | 322 (161) | 0.933 | 0.036 (0.030, 0.042) | 0.044 | 234 (137) | 0.956 | 0.031 (0.024, 0.037) | 0.045 |
United States of America | 581 (202) | 0.940 | 0.042 (0.039, 0.046) | 0.046 | 480 (173) | 0.951 | 0.041 (0.036, 0.045) | 0.046 |
IPEN country | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AUS | BEL | BRZ | COL | CZR | DEN | HKG | MEX | NZL | SPA | UK | USA | |
Factors and items
|
Standardized factor loadings
| |||||||||||
Land use mix – access (LA)
| ||||||||||||
LA1. Stores within easy walking distance | 0.76 | 0.34 | 0.67 | 0.53 | 0.54 | 0.67 | 0.73 | 0.87 | 0.55 | 0.66 | 0.71 | 0.75 |
LA2. Many places within walking distance | 0.82 | - | 0.70 | 0.74 | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.81 | 0.56 | 0.69 | 0.73 | - | 0.85 |
LA3. Easy to walk to a transit stop | 0.39 | 0.52 | 0.34 | 0.52 | 0.57 | 0.36 | 0.60 | 0.74 | 0.39 | 0.32 | 0.63 | 0.42 |
Street connectivity (SC)
| ||||||||||||
SC1. Short distance between intersections | 0.37 | - | 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.32 | 0.41 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.35 |
SC2. Four-way intersections in neighborhood* | 0.37 | 0.54 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
SC3. Many alternative routes | - | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.53 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.58 | 0.29 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.43 | 0.52 |
Infrastructure and safety for walking and cycling (IS)
| ||||||||||||
IS1. Sidewalks | 0.35 | 0.43 | 0.38 | 0.56 | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.32 | 0.40 | 0.42 |
IS2. Street lights | 0.53 | 0.32 | 0.52 | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.44 | 0.64 | 0.55 | 0.59 |
IS3. Walkers and bikers easily seen | - | 0.30 | - | 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.51 | - | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0.58 | 0.34 | 0.57 |
IS4. Crosswalks and pedestrian signals | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.45 | 0.31 | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.51 | 0.29 | 0.32 |
Aesthetics (AE)
| ||||||||||||
AE1. Trees | - | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.38 |
AE2. Trees give shade* | 0.44 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
AE3. Many interesting things to look at | 0.71 | - | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.81 | 0.76 | 0.42 | 0.58 | 0.71 | 0.66 | - | 0.74 |
AE4. Attractive natural sights | 0.60 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.79 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.64 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.75 |
AE5. Attractive buildings / homes | 0.61 | 0.51 | 0.54 | 0.44 | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.54 | 0.62 | 0.68 | 0.73 | 0.71 |
Traffic safety/hazards (TH)
| ||||||||||||
TH1. Heavy traffic along the street* | - | 0.91 | 0.40 | - | 0.58 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
TH2. Heavy traffic along nearby streets | 0.67 | - | - | 0.36 | - | 0.53 | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.43 | 0.62 | 0.46 | 0.70 |
TH3. Slow traffic speed on the street* | −0.30 | −0.36 | - | - | −0.45 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
TH4. Slow traffic speed on nearby streets | - | - | −0.56 | −0.49 | - | −0.43 | −0.42 | −0.37 | −0.64 | −0.34 | −0.64 | −0.61 |
TH5. Speeding drivers | - | 0.31 | 0.55 | 0.56 | 0.48 | 0.52 | 0.81 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.45 | 0.66 | 0.44 |
Safety from crime (CR)
| ||||||||||||
CR1. High crime rate | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.49 | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.77 | 0.62 | 0.74 | 0.65 | 0.71 |
CR2. Unsafe to walk during the day | 0.60 | 0.69 | 0.55 | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.62 | 0.55 | 0.69 | 0.58 | 0.54 |
CR3. Unsafe to walk at night | 0.71 | 0.82 | 0.68 | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.88 | 0.68 | 0.81 | 0.74 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.82 |
Few cul-de-sacs (CS)
| SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI |
Physical barriers to walking (BW)
| SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI | SI |
Average absolute inter-factor correlation
| 0.15 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.22 |
Maximum absolute inter-factor correlation: pairs of factors
| 0.68 | 0.33 | 0.91 | 0.96 | 0.65 | 0.57 | 0.72 | 0.62 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.73 | 0.52 |
IS-AE | IS-CR | LA-SC | SC-IS | SC-IS | SC-IS | SC-IS | LA-SC | LA-SC | LA-SC | LA-SC | TH-CR | |
Pairs of inter-correlated error terms
| 0 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Comparability of versions of the NEWS/NEWS-A subscale
Subscale [version] | Items | Countries using specific version | No. of countries used for comparisons* | Average (min, max) correlation between standard and alternative versions | Average (min, max) effect size for difference between mean scores on standard and alternative versions | Comparable |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land use mix – access [standard] | AL1, AL2, AL3 | AUS, BRZ, COL, CZR, DEN, HKG, MEX, NZL, SPA, USA | ||||
Land use mix – access [alternative] | AL1, AL3 | BEL, UK | 10 | 0.94 (0.91, 0.96) | −0.10 (−0.16, 0.02) | YES |
Street connectivity [standard] | SC1, SC3 | BRZ, COL, CZR, DEN, HKG, MEX, NZL, SPA, USA | ||||
Street connectivity [alternative 1] | SC1, SC2 | AUS | 2 | 0.74 (0.65, 0.82) | 0.24 (0.11, 0.36) | NO |
Street connectivity [alternative 2] | SC2, SC3 | BEL | 2 | 0.68 (0.56, 0.79) | 0.19 (0.01, 0.36) | NO |
Street connectivity [alternative 3] | SC1 | AUS | 10 | 0.79 (0.66, 0.85) | 0.10 (−0.13, 0.26) | MARGINALLY |
Street connectivity [alternative 4] | SC3 | BEL | 10 | 0.79 (0.75, 0.85) | −0.11 (−0.26, 0.13) | MARGINALLY |
Infrastructure and safety for walking/cycling [standard] | IS1, IS2, IS3, IS4 | BEL, COL, CZR, DEN, MEX, NZL, SPA, UK, USA | ||||
Infrastructure and safety for walking/cycling [alternative] | IS1, IS2, IS4 | AUS, BRZ, HKG | 9 | 0.94 (0.89, 0.96) | −0.08 (−0.19, 0.05) | YES |
Aesthetics [standard] | AE1, AE3, AE4, AE5 | BRZ, COL, CZR, DEN, HKG, MEX, NZL, SPA, USA | ||||
Aesthetics [alternative 1] | AE1, AE4, AE5 | BEL, UK | 9 | 0.96 (0.95, 0.97) | −0.03 (−0.18, 0.09) | YES |
Aesthetics [alternative 2] | AE2, AE3, AE4, AE5 | AUS | 2 | 0.97 (0.96, 0.97) | 0.02 (−0.12, 0.16) | YES |
Traffic safety/hazards [standard] | TH2, TH4, TH5 | COL, DEN, HKG, MEX, NZL, SPA, UK, USA | ||||
Traffic safety/hazards [alternative 1] | TH2, TH3 | AUS | 2 | 0.80 (0.79, 0.81) | −0.03 (−0.57, 0.51) | MARGINALLY |
Traffic safety/hazards [alternative 2] | TH1, TH4, TH5 | BRZ | 2 | 0.94 (0.93, 0.94) | 0.09 (0.06, 0.12) | YES |
Traffic safety/hazards [alternative 3] | TH1, TH3, TH5 | BEL, CZR | 2 | 0.80 (0.75, 0.84) | 0.24 (0.17, 0.30) | MARGINALLY |
Discussion
Subscale [version] | Algorithm (item) | Country |
---|---|---|
Residential density
| If (RD2) > (RD3) then (RD1) + (RD2) * 11 + (RD4) * 25 + (RD5) * 50 + (RD6) * 75 | BRZ, COL, MEX, NZL, SPA, USA |
[standard] | If (RD3) > (RD2) then (RD1) + (RD3) * 11 + (RD4) * 25 + (RD5) * 50 + (RD6) * 75 | |
If (RD2) = (RD3) then (RD1) + (RD2) * 11 + (RD4) * 25 + (RD5) * 50 + (RD6) * 75 | ||
[alternative 1] | If (RD2) > (RD3) then (RD1) + (RD2) * 11 + (RD4) * 25 + (RD5) * 50 | BEL (responses recoded; see Methods section), AUS, DEN, CZR |
If (RD3) > (RD2) then (RD1) + (RD3) * 11 + (RD4) * 25 + (RD5) * 50 | ||
If (RD2) = (RD3) then (RD1) + (RD2) * 11 + (RD4) * 25 + (RD5) * 50 | ||
[alternative 2] | (RD1) + (RD2_HKG) * 11 + (RD4) * 25 + (RD5) * 50 + (RD6) * 75 + (RD7) * 100 | HKG |
[alternative 3] | (RD1) + (RD2) * 11 + (RD3_UK) * 18.5 + (RD5) * 50 | UK |
Land use mix – diversity
| [(LD1) + … + (LD9)] / 9 | All (Items reclassified; see Methods section) |
[standard] | ||
[alternative 1] | [(LD1) + … + (LD13)] / 13 | AUS, BEL, BRZ, COL, CZR, DEN, HKG, MEX, NZL, SPA, USA (Items reclassified; see Methods section) |
Land use mix – access
| [(LA1) + … + (LA3)] / 3 | AUS, BRZ, COL, CZR, DEN, HKG, MEX, NZL, SPA, USA |
[standard] | ||
[alternative 1] | [(LA1) + (LA3)] / 2 | BEL, UK |
Street connectivity
| [(SC1) + (SC3)] / 2 | BRZ, COL, CZR, DEN, HKG, MEX, NZL, SPA, UK, USA |
[standard] | ||
[alternative 1] | (SC1) | AUS |
[alternative 2] | (SC3) | BEL |
Infrastructure and safety for walking and cycling
| [(IS1) + … + (IS4)] / 4 | BEL, COL, CZR, DEN, MEX, NZL, SPA, UK, USA |
[standard] | ||
[alternative 1] | [(IS1) + (IS2) + (IS4)] / 3 | AUS, BRZ, HKG |
Aesthetics
| [(AE1) + (AE3) + (AE4) + (AE5)] / 4 | BRZ, COL, CZR, DEN, HKG, MEX, NZL, SPA, USA |
[standard] | ||
[alternative 1] | [(AE1) + (AE4) + (AE5)] / 3 | BEL, UK |
[alternative 2] | [(AE2) + … + (AE5)] / 4 | AUS |
Traffic safety/hazards
| [(TH2_R) + (TH4) + (TH5_R)] / 3 | COL, DEN, HKG, MEX, NZL, SPA, UK, USA |
[standard] | ||
[alternative 1] | [(TH2_R) + (TH3)] / 2 | AUS |
[alternative 2] | [(TH1_R) + (TH4) + (TH5_R)] / 3 | BRZ |
[alternative 3] | [(TH1_R) + (TH3) + (TH5_R)] / 3 | BEL, CZR |
Safety from crime
| [(CR1_R) + (CR2_R) + (CR3_R)] / 3 | All |
[standard] | ||
Few cul-de-sacs
| (CS) | All |
[standard] | ||
Physical barriers to walking
| (BW) | All |
[standard] |