Journal of Transport & Health 1 (2014) 223231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport & Health

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jth

What limits the pedestrian? Exploring perceptions of walking in the

built environment and in the context of every-day life
David Lindelw a,n, se Svensson a, Catharina Sternudd b, Maria Johansson c
a
Transport and Roads, Department of Technology and Society, Lund University, PO 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
b
Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Lund University, PO 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
c
Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Lund University, PO 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Available online 11 October 2014 Walkability is often researched from the perspective of certain physical features in the built environ-
Keywords: ment. However, for this paper, the point of departure was to also treat walking as a transport mode for
Walking reaching destinations and performing every-day activities. A conceptual model addressing both
Walkability perceptions of the built environment and perceived limits due to every-day activities was used as a
Every-day activities standpoint for examining walking behaviour among residents in three neighbourhoods in the city of
Built environment Malm, Sweden (N 1001). A principal component analysis for the variables addressing the aspects of
Sweden the model revealed a resemblance with our theoretical interpretation. The obtained components
relationships with reported walking frequency were examined with binary logistic regression and
revealed a signicant association for the rating of one factor addressing the perceived limits on walking
due to the constraints of every-day activities.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Walking can be seen as the most fundamental transport mode in accessible and sustainable cities and is practiced by people of almost
any age. Environments suitable for walking constitute a vital part of a successful public transport system as well as an attractive urban
environment. Research on walking is often justied for instrumental reasons, with its ability to full societal goals such as public health,
modal shift, trafc safety, neighbourhood security or a more attractive urban environment (Middleton, 2011), whereas this paper stresses
the need for complementing this notion with a view on walking as a transport mode. This entails researching walking as a means for
reaching destinations and performing activities in every-day life, by integrating ideas from activity-based approaches.
Recent years research interest on walking has, to a large extent, been represented by the eld of urban form and travel behaviour
(Boarnet, 2011; Handy et al., 2002, 2005). Many of these studies come under the heading of walkability research, where behavioural
outcomes of urban form are studied with a special focus on walkingwith contributions from researchers in transport, urban design and
the health sciences (Brownson et al., 2009; Cerin et al., 2007; Ewing and Handy, 2009; Forsyth et al., 2009; Saelens and Handy, 2008;
Southworth, 2005; Sundquist et al., 2011; Van Holle et al., 2012). Walkability can be dened as any planning-related factor that affects
peoples propensity to walk (Adkins et al., 2012; Southworth, 2005) but has to a certain degree come to be represented by particular urban
design features at neighbourhood and urban level (Handy, 2005). These studies have found correlations between walking rates and certain
features in the built environment. These features of interest can normally be sorted into the 3 D:s, density, diversity and design (Cervero
and Kockelman, 1997). Views still differ as to whether the emphasis should be on features at the micro (e.g. street and streetscape design,
maintenance, greenery) or macro (e.g. proximity, connectivity, land use mix) level. The focus of these studies is nevertheless on the built
environment, be it micro or macro (Handy, 2005).
However, walking is, as with any other transport mode, not only something happening in the context of the built environment, it is also
a part of most peoples every-day life. The choice to walk is inuenced either positively or negatively by both the built environment
and the demands of every-day activities (Dijst et al., 2002). This is also to say that walking should be seen as having the potential of being
a realistic alternative for performing such activities. In activity-based transport research the relationship between transport and every-day

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 46 462229140.
E-mail address: david.lindelow@tft.lth.se (D. Lindelw).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2014.09.002
2214-1405/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
224 D. Lindelw et al. / Journal of Transport & Health 1 (2014) 223231

activities has been a topic of interest for quite some time (Axhausen and Grling, 1992; Lenntorp, 1976). This eld of research often uses
time-geographical constraints as an analytical framework for understanding how the limits of time, space and activities shape travel
behaviour (Hgerstrand, 1970; Neutens et al., 2010). Within this research eld the focus has been on motorised travel. Thus, walking has
not been the mode subject to most attention (Perchoux et al., 2013; Rainham et al., 2010).
Partly in response to this, there has been a growing interest in bridging the gap between studies focusing on neighbourhood effects, and those
focusing on the behaviour of individuals in space and time (Perchoux et al., 2013; Rainham et al., 2010; Saarloos et al., 2009). These scholars argue
that time geography and other ego-centred concepts give new insights for the study of health effects (such as the choice to walk) in an urban or a
neighbourhood context. However, studies taking space-time behaviour into account do seldom examine peoples perceptions of the constraints
that every-day activities impose. Incorporating such perceptions could mean addressing questions such as: How much of a constraint do
pedestrians perceive their every-day activities to be? And, given these perceived constraints, to what extent can urban and neighbourhood design
support the decision to walk? We argue that there is still a need to substantiate the perceptions of constraints in every-day life in terms of the
choice to walk; and to relate these to the eld of urban form and travel behaviour (Pooley et al., 2011).
This paper puts forward the consideration that a walkable built environment is not sufcient to fully support certain types of walking
trips; rather these trips are made possible if the choice to walk ts into the daily activity schedule of the individual and is supported by the
built environment. Hence, a supportive built environment can only affect the choice to walk to a limited extent. This reasoning applies
perhaps mostly to xed trips, i.e. trips to a certain place that have to be undertaken within a limited amount of time, such as trips to work,
education or for dropping off/collecting children. These activities can be seen as temporally and/or spatially xed, compared to exible
activities which can more easily take place at different places and/or at different times. Fixed activities are quite often situated far from
home and are part of a longer trip chain which might exclude walking as a realistic modal choice. This, in turn, affects which exible
activities that can be carried out on foot, as well as their duration and location (Doherty, 2006).
However, temporally and spatially xed means different things for different people (Schwanen et al., 2008). Two persons may have
differing perceptions as to how realistic it is to t the same kind of walking trip into his or her daily travel. Given the slow nature of
walking, it is compared to faster modes likely to be more dependent on the local environment and also, for a lot of trips, less likely to
be seen as a realistic modal choice. The aim of this paper is therefore to investigate how individuals perceive their every-day activity
schedule and their walking environment in terms of inuencing their choice to walk.
The question is then if, and to what extent, individuals perceptions of the built environment and every-day activities inuence walking
frequency, i.e. are those trips for which the built environment is rated as pleasurable and/or accessible more likely to be made more
often?; and do the perceived constraints of every-day life limit the amount of walking a person does?; and which of these two aspects is
most strongly correlated with walking outcomes?

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. A conceptual model for analysing walkability

This study takes its point of departure in a conceptual model describing the relationship between the daily activity schedule and
perceptions of the built environment and their effects on walking as a modal choice. The perception of the walking environment
encompasses the trafc situation as well as design qualities of the built environment. The conceptual model is interpreted and analysed
by means of questionnaire data on walking in the Swedish city of Malm. This research was conducted as part of the Urban Walking
project, engaging researchers from the elds of architecture, urban design, environmental psychology, transport planning and trafc
safety. This combination of disciplines ensured that the assessment was made from several relevant perspectives. The discussion and
interpretation in the following sub-sections will act as a starting point for this papers operationalisation and analysis of the concepts
described.
Walkability studies have been criticised for lacking a theoretical basis (Handy, 2005), not taking space-time behaviour into account
(Rainham et al., 2010; Saarloos et al., 2009) and for not linking perceived and objective characteristics of the built environment (Bauman
and Owen, 2009; Handy, 2005). This is despite the well-established consideration that the interaction between the human and the built
environment is mediated by characteristics of the individual such as perceptions, attitudes and personality (Kller, 1991). This implies that
environmental design should be considered, not only according to objective criteria, but also according to peoples perceptions. Thus,
socio-ecological models are required to deepen the understanding of walkability.
Alfonzo's (2005) hierarchy of walking needs, shown in Fig. 1, is a socio-ecological model that can be said to address all of these issues by
conceptualising the built environment features that have been studied in previous research. Additionally, it links these features to the
limits that every-day activities and responsibilities impose. Some aspects and features are seen as fundamental in the sense that they
should be fullled in order for higher order aspects to become relevant for the choice to walk (Maslow, 1943). At the bottom of the
hierarchy is feasibility, a basic aspect describing personal limits as opposed to an aspect associated with urban form. Above feasibility lie
aspects related to local urban form and urban planning. These are accessibility, safety, comfort and pleasurability (Alfonzo, 2005). Alfonzo
places the hierarchy within a social-ecological framework where a number of attributes on individual, group and regional level are said to
inuence the extent to which a person is affected by the hierarchy. Hence, the hierarchy is not directly linked to the decision to walk which
means that persons may have different thresholds in the hierarchy where his or her demands are sufciently met.
Alfonzos model has been used in earlier studies (Alfonzo et al., 2008; Larco et al., 2012; Trumpeter and Wilson, 2013). However, these
studies did not include all aspects of the hierarchy, nor did they explicitly analyse the hierarchical structure that Alfonzo suggests.
Singleton (2013) presents an extensive analysis of each aspect in the hierarchy, but without empirically examining them. Thus, there is still
a need to empirically examine perceived feasibility aspects in relation to perceived environmental qualities, when it comes to walking.

2.2. Theoretical interpretation of the model

In contrast to recent studies taking their point of departure in Alfonzos framework, this paper relates the framework to other concepts
and theories within research on the built environment and travel, and empirically explores all of the aspects in a northern European urban
 D. Lindelw et al. / Journal of Transport & Health 1 (2014) 223231 225

Pleasurability

Comfort

Safety

Accessibility

Feasibility

Fig. 1. Alfonzos (2005) hierarchy of walking needs.

Table 1
The items operationalised from our interpretation of aspects relevant to walking in the built environment. Items in italics were excluded from further analysis.

Item group Formulation of items Mean SD Kurtosis Skewness

Pleasurability The environment along the route is beautiful and attractive 3.57 1.248  .783  .443
The environment encourages me to walk along this route 3.60 1.346  .909  .551
The environment along the route is boring 2.36 1.287  .846 .525
Comfort The route feels planned for me as a pedestrian 4.01 1.145 .057  .960
This route is most suitable for cars and/or buses 2.26 1.305  .618 .717
Safety I feel safe (in relation to threats, violence, etc.) when walking this route during the day 4.58 .876 6.002  2.459
It feels safe to walk this route in terms of trafc 4.32 1.042 1.770  1.576
I feel unsafe (in terms of threats, violence, etc.) walking along this route in the evening 2.38 1.449  1.067 .583
I worry about the trafc when I walk along this route 1.92 1.205 .149 1.123
Accessibility It is a practical way to travel 4.01 1.212 .608  1.215
The route is the fastest route to my destination 4.24 1.236 1.230  1.553
I feel this route is easy for me as a pedestrian 4.49 .890 4.537  2.117
The route is the shortest route to my destination 4.20 1.218 .935  1.434
I think it is problematical to walk along this route 1.61 1.034 2.171 1.732
Feasibility It is a reasonable distance to walk 4.13 1.210 .911  1.376
The time it takes to walk is reasonable 3.87 1.371  .243  1.017
Walking ts in with my and other household members activities during the day 3.55 1.475  1.099  .531
Walking is the only reasonable alternative I have for getting there 3.03 1.756  1.756  .032

setting. Thus, we neither test nor evaluate Alfonzos framework, but rather explore its elements in light of ndings and concepts relevant
to the setting for this study. The operationalised items originating from this discussion are presented in Table 1.
The most basic aspect in the hierarchy is feasibility, which could be described as the limits that time, capacity and responsibility for
others place on the individuals every-day lifeand, thus, also the possibility to walk. Feasibility does not relate to urban form per se, but
provides a basis for understanding how possible it would be to undertake specic trips on foot in a given built environment. This
reasoning derives from that of time-geography where space, time and different kinds of constraints set the limit for which activities and
trips are possible or feasible to carry out (Hgerstrand, 1970). The constraints of greatest importance in this case are coupling constraints
that describe the need to be present at certain places at certain times which limits the possibility to do other activities at other places at
the same time.
The four aspects which lie above feasibility concern urban form and design. Accessibility is considered the rst and fundamental urban
form aspect related to the choice to walk. Transport accessibility is, however, a phenomenon with several components such as those
related to land use, transport, temporality and the individual (Geurs and van Wee, 2004). Within research on walking the interest has
mostly concerned built environment factors (Handy, 2005; Iwarsson and Sthl, 2003). Alfonzo includes land use (e.g. quantity and quality
of nearby amenities) as well as infrastructure (e.g. connectivity, sidewalks and other walking paths) in her denition. In this paper,
accessibility was understood and operationalised as an issue of perceived ease for walking and the street networks directness.
The aspect safety is related to fear of crime in the built environment. In this paper, safety in the built environment includes both trafc
safety and the fear of crime. Trafc safety could as is the case with crime work as a perceived barrier to walking (Cho et al., 2009). Car
speed is correlated to the frequency and severity of accidents among pedestrians (Nilsson, 2004), and it affects how pedestrians perceive
the trafc environment (Risser and Lehner, 1998). Furthermore, perceived level of safety and fear of crime have been linked to walking
levels in neighbourhoods (Doyle et al., 2006).
Alfonzo interprets comfort as an issue of convenience for walking in terms of level of ease and contentment. Comfort mirrors the
relationship between pedestrians and motorised modes. Conditions of sidewalks and pedestrian walkways as well as the presence of
features such as speed bumps, buffers and even width and length of streets are considered to contribute to pedestrian comfort. Matan and
Newman (2012) also associate the level of maintenance and order, air quality and soundscape with comfort.
The highest level of the model is pleasurability and concerns how enjoyable and interesting an area is for walking, which is related to
the overall visual pleasantness of urban space (Kller, 1991) and covers pedestrians experiences of urban design qualities such as
imageability, coherence, complexity, and presence of greenery (Ewing and Handy, 2009). Other research points to perceived pleasantness
226 D. Lindelw et al. / Journal of Transport & Health 1 (2014) 223231

(Ball et al., 2001), attractiveness (Ball et al., 2001; Handy et al., 2006) and aesthetics (Brown et al., 2007; Day et al., 2006; Pikora et al.,
2002) as aspects of pleasurability associated with walking.

3. Method

3.1. Setting

Three neighbourhoods in Malm were used as the setting for empirically examining perceived personal and environmental conditions for everyday walking. Malm is
the third largest city in Sweden, with c.300,000 inhabitants, a population density of 1,950 inhabitants per square kilometre and is located by the coast in the region of Skne,
in southern Sweden (Statistics Sweden, 2013). The city has a at, dense and fairly concentrated urban structure. Relatively large shares of the trips within and into Malm are
made by foot, bicycle or public transport (Trivector Trafc, 2009). The citys transport system consists of a relatively built-up network for pedestrians, bicycles, cars as well as
buses and trains.
Our research project aims to examine walking in a semi-peripheral setting. Three neighbourhoods, Lorensborg, Dammfri and Rnneholm, were selected based on some
shared macro characteristics such as approximate distance to the city centre, access to public transport, car ownership and socio-economic conditions. The public transport
access is of a high standard for all of the neighbourhoods, with several bus lines that connect to important every-day destinations departing more frequently than every ten
minutes during peak hour. In all three neighbourhoods there contain schools, smaller grocery stores and other shops and there are larger grocery stores in the vicinity. The
neighbourhoods represent urban design characteristics that are common in many Swedish urban areas. The neighbourhoods characteristics are described in Table 2 (Malm
Stadskontor, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). However, the scope of this paper does not cover comparisons between the neighbourhoods, in terms of perceptions and walking
outcomes.

3.2. Sample and procedure

A postal survey was carried out in the three neighbourhoods. The nal version of the questionnaire was preceded by a pilot study that led to minor modications in the
study design. The nal sample was drawn from the Swedish address register SPAR (Statens personadressregister) and was based on postal area codes. The randomised
sample in each neighbourhood consisted of 50% women who were between 18 and 85 years of age. 1000 mail questionnaires were sent out to Lorensborg, 1050 to Dammfri
and 1300 to Rnneholm. The questionnaires were distributed in October and November in 2011, before winter weather conditions might affect the number of walking trips,
to ensure that the respondents carried out a sufcient number of walking trips. After a reminder was administered, the response rate reached 30% (N 1001). Characteristics
for the study sample are presented in Table 4.
The variables age, gender, level of education and household income were used in an analysis of representativeness. The questionnaire data was compared with
neighbourhood data from Malm municipality (Malm Stadskontor, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c) Age, gender and level of education showed no particular bias for any of the
neighbourhoods, whereas household income for the area of Lorensborg was higher in the survey data. The variables age, gender and level of education all had o 5% of
missing values, whereas household income had 7%.

3.3. The questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of three main parts: (i) personal characteristics; (ii) daily travel; and (iii) walking behaviour. The analysis in this paper was largely based on
questions concerning the respondents three most frequent walking trips. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of different statements regarding these three trips
on 5-point Likert scales. The statements used in this paper are the items operationalised from the above analysis of Alfonzos categories, presented in Table 1. Respondents
were also asked to state the purposes of the three trips from a list of 11 pre-coded purposes, chosen in order to obtain a variety of spatial and/or temporal xity (Doherty,
2006; Schwanen et al., 2008). These were then categorised into two groups based on the activities supposed xity (Doherty, 2006; Schwanen
et al., 2008). Table 3 shows the walking trips supposed xity. Respondents were also asked to state how often each walking trip was made. The variable regarding
walking frequency had the response alternatives Every day, Several times a week, Once a week, Every month and More seldom.

3.4. Data analysis

The data analysis was made for each respondents most frequent walking trip. This was done in order to avoid the problem of internal correlation between items
addressing the respondents three trips.
Principal component analysis (PCA; orthogonal rotation according to the varimax criterion) was performed in order to explore the respondents perceptions of their most
common walking trip. PCA can be used to identify latent variables based on measured items variation (Field, 2009). This analysis has been used in the eld of urban form and
travel behaviour to explore how perceptions of the built environment relate to individuals every-day travel (Bauman and Owen, 2009; Handy et al., 2006). Analyses
regarding skewness and kurtosis values were used as a test for normality in order to determine the suitability of including specic items in the principal component analysis.
Excluded items are shown in italics in Table 1. The exploratory approach was chosen, since the objective was to identify relevant perceptions in the Swedish context rather
than conrm previously dened concepts. The different perceptions were not expected to be strongly inter-correlated; hence, the orthogonal rotation was used. The nal
composition of each factor was based on the included items factor loadings, the internal reliability for the factor and the strength of its relationship with the theoretical
discussion.
The obtained factors were used as independent variables in a binary logistic regression analysis with walking frequency as the dependent variable. The assumption of
proportional odds was not met with the dependent variable treated as ordinal, thus, binary logistic regression was chosen instead of an ordinal logistic regression. The

Table 2
Characteristics for the three examined neighbourhoods in Malm.

Lorensborg Dammfri Rnneholm

Inhabitants 3,952 3,686 6,996

Area (ha) 37 31 48
Car ownership (per 1000 in.) 270 290 280
Distance to city centre (km) 2.2 1.85 1.6
Annual income (SEK) 132,000 148,000 155,000
Construction period 19561969 19451955 19001980
Stories (predominantly) 116 (8) 16 (3) 47 (4)
Block type Open-plan superblocks Closed/semi open city blocks Closed/semi open city blocks
Urban fabric Course grained Fine grained Fine grained
Vehicular trafc Segregated Semi-integrated Integrated
 D. Lindelw et al. / Journal of Transport & Health 1 (2014) 223231 227

Table 3
Classication of the two groups of trip purposes.

Fixed trips Flexible trips

Walking to a bus stop Stroll/recreation trip

Walking to a railway station Other shopping errand
Grocery store Meeting friends/socialising
Workplace Workout/exercise
School/university Other purpose
Drop off/collect children

Table 4
Descriptive statistics regarding the study samples walking trips and individual variables.

Variable Value/label N Mean SD

Trip frequency Most frequent trip 1More seldom 13 (1.3%) 4.24 .84
2Every month 29 (2.9%)
3Once a week 91 (9.2%)
4Several times a week 433 (43.9%)
5Every day 421 (42.7%)

Trip purpose Fixed trips Walking to bus stop 133 (14.1%)

Walking to railway station 9 (1.0%)
N 572 Grocery store 288 (30.6%)
Workplace 103 (10.9%)
School/university 11 (1.2%)
Drop off/collect children 28 (3.0%)
Flexible trips Stroll/recreation trip 231 (24.5%)
Other shopping errand 17 (1.8%)
N 369 Meeting friends/socialising 22 (2.3%)
Workout/excercise 73 (7.8%)
Other 26 (2.8%)

Individual variables Gender 1Female 534 (55.1%)

0Male 435 (44.9%)

Employment status 1Working 608 (62.2%)

1Studying 59 (6.0%)
0Retired 255 (26.1%)
0Looking for work 19 (1.9%)
0On sick leave 7 (0.7%)
0Other 29 (3%)

Car access 1Yes 561 (57.5%)

0No 415 (45.5 %)

Age 49.96 18.05

Annual household income 375300 210461

regression analysis was used to check the extent to which each of the obtained factors inuences the likelihood of a walking trip to be made more often (Field, 2009). To
examine differences between different trips, the regression analysis was also made for xed and exible walking trips. In order to place the obtained factors within a socio-
ecological context, variables representing gender, age, household income, employment status and car access were included in the regression. The statistical analysis was
carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics version 20. p values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically signicant.

4. Results

4.1. Principal components analysis

Descriptive statistics for all items operationalised from the theoretical interpretation are presented in Table 1. Four items were
excluded prior to the factor analysis since they did not meet the assumption of normal distribution (excluded items are shown in italics).
The result of the factor analysis is presented in Table 5. Five factors with eigenvalues above 1 were obtained which accounted for 67% of
the total variance. Principle component analyses for the most frequent xed trips and the most frequent exible trips revealed the same
factor composition.
The principal component analysis suggested with minor exceptions that there was a correspondence between our theoretical
denitions of environmental perceptions relevant for urban walking and the respondents perceptions of their walking environment. In
the nal compositions of indices to be used in further analysis three criteria were employed: The item should (i) have a factor loading of
40.7, (ii) contribute to the interpretation of the factor and/or (iii) contribute to a higher internal reliability (excluded items are shown in
italics in Table 5). A Cronbachs of Z0.7 was considered to represent a sufcient internal reliability; a value of o0.7 was accepted if a
specic item contributed to the theoretical understanding of the factor. The computed indices, their items and statistics are presented in
Table 6.
Factor I consisted of all of the items representing pleasurability and did, therefore, correspond to our theoretical interpretation. Factor II
was interpreted as describing feasibility in terms of the respondents perceptions of time and space. Thus, the item addressing practicality
228 D. Lindelw et al. / Journal of Transport & Health 1 (2014) 223231

Table 5
Factor loadings in the principal component analysis after rotation. Items in italic were excluded from further analysis.

Formulation of items Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV Factor V

The environment along the route is beautiful and attractive 0.883  0.030  0.098 0.038 0.039
The environment encourages me to walk along this route 0.856 0.017  0.009  0.090 0.156
The environment along the route is boring  0.818 0.080 0.054 0.143 0.068
The route feels planned for me as a pedestrian 0.395 0.140 0.177  0.473 0.295
This route is most suitable for cars and/or buses  0.412 0.035 0.084 0.562  0.021
I feel unsafe (in terms of threats, violence, etc.) walking along this route in the evening 0.225  0.036  0.115 0.681 0.167
I worry about the trafc when I walk along this route  0.155 0.021 0.016 0.818  0.073
It is a practical way to travel 0.010 0.498 0.190  0.008 0.350
The route is the fastest route to my destination  0.103 0.151 0.888  0.029 0.033
The route is the shortest route to my destination  0.027 0.140 0.901  0.049 0.080
It is a reasonable distance to walk  0.026 0.882 0.117  0.003 0.038
The time it takes to walk is reasonable  0.053 0.879 0.075  0.025 0.060
Walking ts in with my and other household members activities during the day 0.213 0.202 0.008 0.018 0.689
Walking is the only reasonable alternative I have for getting there  0.081 0.014 0.061  0.014 0.822
% of variance 18.9 13.6 12.3 12.2 10.3

Table 6
Composition of indices derived from the factor analysis.

Index Mean SD % of variance

Pleasurability (Factor I) 3.606 1.134 0.847 18.93

Trafc (Factor III) 3.937 0.942 0.623 12.20
Accessibility (Factor IV) 4.217 1.131 0.806 12.32
Feasibility: timespace (Factor II) 3.996 1.183 0.793 13.65
Feasibility: every-day life (Factor V) 3.283 1.326 0.448 10.26

was excluded since it meant a slightly higher internal reliability and the item did not contribute to the conceptual understanding of the
factor. Contrary to our theoretical interpretation, Factor III consisted of items meant to address both safety and comfort. To obtain a higher
internal reliability and to give the factor a conceptual coherence, it was dened as describing perceptions of the trafc environment.
Therefore, the item concerning fear of crime was excluded, which also gave a higher internal reliability. Factor IV consisted of items
describing accessibilitythe directness of the route, in particular. The items in Factor V corresponded to our theoretical discussion
regarding feasibility in terms of tting walking into every-day life.
The nal compositions of the indices capturing environmental perceptions (Accessibility, Trafc and Pleasurability) meant a somewhat
new division between perceptions of the trafc environment (Trafc) and the built environment (Pleasurability). Accessibility remained
stable, but only for describing the directness of the route. Feasibility was not as consistent as suggested and was divided into two factors in
the analysis of the empirical data. Feasibility in terms of time-space issues formed a coherent index, whereas feasibility in relation to
every-day life had a low internal reliability (Cronbachs 0.448).

4.2. Regression analysis

The binary logistic regression analysis was carried out using walking frequency as the dependent variable. Since the data analysis was
based on each respondents most frequent walking trip, the dependent variable was dominated by the response alternatives Every day,
Several times a week and Once a week ( 4.24; SD 0.837). The dependent variable was constructed to compare every-day walking
trips (Every day) with those undertaken more seldom (Several times a week or less often). This division was chosen in order to analyse
trips that are more likely to be part of an every-day routine, which also justied performing a binary logistic regression analysis. Table 7
presents the logistic regression analysis for each persons most frequent walking trip. The individual variables used in the regression
analysis are presented in Table 4. The coding of the dichotomous variables is marked with 1 (Every day) and 0 (Several times a
week or less often). To allow comparisons regarding spatial and temporal xity these most frequent trips were divided into xed (Most
frequent trip: Fixed) and exible (Most frequent trip: Flexible) ones. Since the independent variables were not strongly correlated
(r r0.35) and had low VIF values ( 1.0), multicollinearity was not considered to pose a problem in the regression analysis. Due to its low
internal reliability, the factor Feasibility: Every-day life was represented by merely the item about the households activities.
The regression partly established the importance of feasibilityin being signicantly associated with the likelihood of a walking trip to
be made on a daily basis (OR1.176; CI 95% 1.0591.305), which suggests that if this need is not met, walking could be less likely to occur.
This held true for xed (OR 1.155; CI 95% 1.0091.323) as well as exible (OR 1.270; CI 95% 1.0511.535) walking trips. The control
variable household income decreased the likelihood of the respondents most frequent walking trip and most frequent xed trips to be
made on a daily basis. This is in line with previous ndings in the eld (Forsyth et al., 2009; Sundquist et al., 2011). However, gender and
age did not signicantly contribute, nor did car access or employment status.
 D. Lindelw et al. / Journal of Transport & Health 1 (2014) 223231 229

Table 7
Binary logistic regression analysis for the most frequent walking trip.

Most frequent trip b p OR CI 95%

Pleasurability 0.054 0.468 1.055 (0.9131.220)

Trafc  0.120 0.169 0.886 (0.7471.052)
Accessibility  0.085 0.204 0.918 (0.8051.048)
Feasibility: time-space  0.094 0.166 0.910 (0.7971.040)
Feasibility: every-day life 0.162 0.002 1.176 (1.0591.305)
Gender  0.047 0.755 0.955 (0.7131.278)
Age 0.001 0.804 1.001 (0.9911.012)
Household income  0.099 0.015 0.906 (0.8360.981)
Employment status 0.049 0.829 1.050 (0.6731.638)
Car access  0.271 0.092 0.763 (0.5561.045)
Constant 0.613 0.332
N 803;  2 log likelihood 1060.419

Most frequent trip: xed

Pleasurability 0.097 0.300 1.102 (0.9171.323)
Trafc  0.139 0.193 0.870 (0.7051.073)
Accessibility  0.112 0.346 0.894 (0.7081.129)
Feasibility: timespace  0.149 0.119 0.862 (0.7151.039)
Feasibility: every-day life 0.144 0.037 1.155 (1.0091.323)
Gender 0.125 0.520 1.133 (0.7751.655)
Age  0.002 0.745 0.998 (0.9841.012)
Household income  0.147 0.004 0.863 (0.7800.955)
Employment status 0.566 0.067 1.761 (0.9623.222)
Car access  0.318 0.124 0.728 (0.4851.091)
Constant 0.918 0.307
N 483;  2 log likelihood 620.068

Most frequent trip: exible

Pleasurability  0.033 0.819 0.968 (0.7291.284)
Trafc  0.092 0.586 0.912 (0.6541.271)
Accessibility  0.135 0.165 0.874 (0.7231.057)
Feasibility: time-space  0.075 0.477 0.928 (0.7541.141)
Feasibility: every-day life 0.239 0.013 1.270 (1.0511.535)
Gender  0.440 0.087 0.644 (0.3891.066)
Age 0.004 0.668 1.004 (0.9861.022)
Household income  0.040 0.581 0.961 (0.8331.108)
Employment status  0.671 0.068 0.511 (0.2491.050)
Car access  0.274 0.345 0.760 (0.4311.343)
Constant 0.933 0.377
N 293;  2 log likelihood 373.913

5. Discussion and conclusions

5.1. Interpreting the empirical ndings

The aim of this paper was to investigate how individuals every-day activity schedule and their walking environment were perceived
for their most frequent walking trip. We argue that perceptions of both the built environment and the limits of every-day life have
implications for individuals walking behaviour, and that there is a need to jointly study these aspects. Our study, from a multidisciplinary
perspective, theoretically and empirically examined such perceptions. These included Feasibility: Every-day life and Feasibility: Time-
space as well as the perceived Accessibility, Trafc and Pleasurability of the built environment. Below, these aspects are addressed in
relation to the empirical setting.
The proposed fundamental aspects regarding feasibility can be seen as a necessary, but perhaps not a sufcient, condition for walking.
The regression results suggested that many walking trips occur as a result of necessity, regardless of how the built environment is
perceived. The aspect regarding every-day life revealed signicant associations with walking frequency (Pooley et al., 2011), as opposed to
perceptions of time and space, which previously have been shown to be of importance for the choice to walk (Booth et al., 1997).
Feasibility was of importance both for xed and for exible walking trips, which could suggest that exible trips must also t into
every-day life in order to be carried out. In light of these ndings, exible walking trips could be even more sensitive to constraints of
every-day life, as they are more likely to be left out (Doherty, 2006). This is further accentuated by the fact that exible trips in our sample
were dominated by strolling and recreation trips. However, the built environment in our setting is relatively supportive for walking.
Research on urban areas possessing more extreme differences in terms of infrastructure for walking, or on urban areas which are situated
in different urban or regional contexts, are more likely to reveal whether feasibility is both necessary and sufcient for walkingand for
which trips this holds true.
Our focus on trips which respondents do undertake did not allow us to explicitly study the potential to walk in the neighbourhoods. For
example, the common understanding of accessibility concerns the number and quality of potential nearby destinations (Geurs and van
Wee, 2004; Handy, 2005)whereas this paper deals with the actual destinations that the respondents reached on foot in their
neighbourhood. Thus, the items for accessibility did not have statements about destinations specically, although the variable describing
the purpose of the trip can be said to be addressing the issue of destinations within walking reach.
230 D. Lindelw et al. / Journal of Transport & Health 1 (2014) 223231

The studied neighbourhoods all have a relatively complete sidewalk network, although with different street congurations; and they
all consist of a number of potential destinations. As suggested in the theoretical interpretation of the model, a persons activity schedule
may limit the utility of those destinations. Therefore, destinations near to home are not necessarily the ones that are used. To reach a
better understanding of why walking occurs or does not occur, accessibility and feasibility would need to be studied for potential as well
as actual walking trips.
The aspect Trafc included both planning and safety conditions for walking, which suggests that respondents perceive trafc safety
as a part of planning conditions for walking. Those pedestrians who perceive the built environment to be more suitable for cars or buses
would then also be worried about the trafc environment (Risser and Lehner, 1998). Aspects regarding fear of crime were excluded, which
could be related to the choice of setting in a northern European context. Thus, fear of crime could be less of a concern for actual walking
trips, but perhaps more so for predicting the potential of walking (Larco et al., 2012).
Pleasurability aspects formed a coherent component, which included both perceived attractiveness and whether the environment
encourages walking. This nding further emphasises the role of the quality of the built environment, which reects previous ndings (Ball
et al., 2001; Ewing and Handy, 2009).

5.2. Limitations and future research

As suggested in the section Theoretical framework, some aspects are fundamental in the sense that they should be fullled in order for
higher order aspects to become relevant for the choice to walk. As Alfonzo (2005, p. 819) states:

What the hierarchy does ultimately imply is that the absence of higher-order needs (and associated amenities, in the case of the built
environment) does not restrict the choice to walk if lower-order needs have not been fullled.

It could be suggested that the size of odds ratios in the regression analysis revealed the order of the factors in a hierarchy. But since the
OR for many of the factors did not come out as signicant, it remains to be explored how the aspects representing urban design are related
to walking frequency. Thus, the existence of a hierarchal structure could not be established. For future studies, an interaction analysis
would allow a comparison regarding the importance of different aspects.
The questionnaire study had a relatively low response rate (30%) and household income was not representative for the area Lorensborg.
This imposes limitations on the generalisation of the number of trips made, but the theoretical structure of the respondents perceptions is
most likely still valid. More respondents would have allowed an analysis of specic trip purposes, whereas this analysis looked at
categories of trip purposes. These categories (xed and exible trips) could have inherent differences regarding perceptions of walking.
This study relied on self-reported data of walking trips originating in the respondents home. Future studies should attempt to
complement self-reports with observed trips. The data material did not allow analysis regarding trip chains or daily travel patterns, i.e.
where or when different walking trips actually took place in a persons daily life could not be analysed. Future research should aim to
study the perceived feasibility of walking at different times and places in an individuals every-day activity pattern, i.e. within their action
space (Dijst et al., 2002; Rainham et al., 2010). Such an approach would probably expand the geographical scope of walkability research
and policy to the urban or even regional level (Vojnovic, 2006).
Walking as a physical activity has positive health effects, for example regarding longevity and reducing the risk of cardiovascular
diseases and obesity (Brownson et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2014; Sundquist et al., 2011). Incorporating walking as a natural part of every-day
life could have positive health impacts in terms of engaging in physical activity while reaching a destination, such as the daily commute
(Brjesson and Eliasson, 2012). Our theoretical framework concerned aspects of the built environment and every-day life, and therefore
did not explicitly include the consideration of health aspects as an incentive to walk. Future research should examine whether this factor
could positively contribute to increasing the perceived feasibility of walking as a transport mode.

5.3. Conclusions and policy recommendations

This paper has stressed the need to research walking from a transport perspective and has proposed that the concept feasibility be used
to overcome this. Although only partly suggested by the empirical results, the phenomenon feasibility in itself could be seen as having
policy aspects to it. The spatial distribution of activities and destinations impacts how limiting time and responsibilities for others are
(Dijst et al., 2002; Farber and Pez, 2011). From this perspective, feasibility is not a rigid phenomenon, but one that the built environment
could inuence. Walkability should thus be an issue for transport and urban planners at local, urban and regional levels. Local urban
design does undeniably play a role, but its possibility to alter transport behaviour is limited. Feasibility of walking is also connected to
policies regarding education, opening hours and access to services. So called urban temporal policies are gaining ground in several
European countries, e.g. Italy, Finland and Germany (Mckenberger, 2011). In these policies several different policy issues are viewed from
the perspective of time and time use. These issues include not only transportation and urban planning, but also school, service and
child- and elderly-care (ibid.). Urban temporal policies could in this respect work as a common standpoint for dealing with the feasibility
of walking in the city, although this remains to be seen.

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out within the research project Urban Walking funded by grants from The Swedish Transport Administration,
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and The Swedish Research Council Formas dnr 250-2010-370.

Appendix A. Supporting information

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2014.09.002.
 D. Lindelw et al. / Journal of Transport & Health 1 (2014) 223231 231

References

Adkins, A., Dill, J., Luhr, G., Neal, M., 2012. Unpacking walkability: testing the inuence of urban design features on perceptions of walking environment attractiveness.
J. Urban Des. 17, 499510.
Alfonzo, M., Boarnet, M.G., Day, K., McMillan, T., Anderson, C.L., 2008. The relationship of neighbourhood built environment features and adult parents walking. J. Urban Des.
13, 2951.
Alfonzo, M.A., 2005. To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environ. Behav. 37, 808836.
Axhausen, K.W., Grling, T., 1992. Activitybased approaches to travel analysis: conceptual frameworks, models, and research problems. Transport Rev. 12, 323341.
Ball, K., Bauman, A., Leslie, E., Owen, N., 2001. Perceived environmental aesthetics and convenience and company are associated with walking for exercise among Australian
adults. Prev. Med. 33, 434440.
Bauman, A., Owen, N., 2009. Correlates of non-concordance between perceived and objective measures of walkability. Ann. Behav. Med. 37, 228238.
Boarnet, M.G., 2011. A broader context for land use and travel behavior, and a research agenda. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 77, 197213.
Booth, M.L., Bauman, A., Owen, N., Gore, C.J., 1997. Physical activity preferences, preferred sources of assistance, and perceived barriers to increased activity among physically
inactive Australians. Prev. Med. 26, 131137.
Brjesson, M., Eliasson, J., 2012. The value of time and external benets in bicycle appraisal. Transp. Res.: Part A: Policy Practice 46, 673683.
Brown, B.B., Werner, C.M., Amburgey, J.W., Szalay, C., 2007. Walkable route perceptions and physical features converging evidence for En route walking experiences.
Environ. Behav. 39, 3461.
Brownson, R.C., Hoehner, C.M., Day, K., Forsyth, A., Sallis, J.F., 2009. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am. J. Prev. Med. 36, S99S123
(e112).
Cerin, E., Leslie, E., Toit, L.d., Owen, N., Frank, L.D., 2007. Destinations that matter: associations with walking for transport. Health Place 13, 713724.
Cervero, R., Kockelman, K., 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res.: Part D: Transport Environ. 2, 199219.
Cho, G., Rodrguez, D.A., Khattak, A.J., 2009. The role of the built environment in explaining relationships between perceived and actual pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 41, 692702.
Cohen, J.M., Boniface, S., Watkins, S., 2014. Health implications of transport planning, development and operations. J. Transp. Health 1, 6372.
Day, K., Boarnet, M., Alfonzo, M., Forsyth, A., 2006. The IrvineMinnesota inventory to measure built environments: development. Am. J. Prev. Med. 30, 144152.
Dijst, M., de Jong, T., van Eck, J.R., 2002. Opportunities for transport mode change: an exploration of a disaggregated approach. Environ. Plann. B 29, 413430.
Doherty, S., 2006. Should we abandon activity type analysis? Redening activities by their salient attributes. Transportation 33, 517536.
Doyle, S., Kelly-Schwartz, A., Schlossberg, M., Stockard, J., 2006. Active community environments and health: the relationship of walkable and safe communities to individual
health. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 72, 1931.
Ewing, R., Handy, S., 2009. Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities related to walkability. J. Urban Des. 14, 6584.
Farber, S., Pez, A., 2011. Running to stay in place: the time-use implications of automobile oriented land-use and travel. J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 782793.
Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications.
Forsyth, A., Michael Oakes, J., Lee, B., Schmitz, K.H., 2009. The built environment, walking, and physical activity: is the environment more important to some people than
others? Transp. Res.: Part D: Transport Environ. 14, 4249.
Geurs, K.T., van Wee, B., 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. J. Transp. Geogr. 12, 127140.
Hgerstrand, T., 1970. What about people in regional science? Pap. Reg. Sci. 24, 621.
Handy, S., 2005. Critical Assessment of the Literature on the Relationships Among Transportation, Land Use and Physical Activity.
Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P., 2005. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res.: Part D:
Transport Environ. 10, 427444.
Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2006. Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking: empirical evidence from Northern California. J. Am.
Plann. Assoc. 72, 5574.
Handy, S.L., Boarnet, M.G., Ewing, R., Killingsworth, R.E., 2002. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am. J. Prev. Med. 23, 6473.
Iwarsson, S., Sthl, A., 2003. Accessibility, usability and universal design-positioning and denition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil. Rehabil.
25, 5766.
Kller, R., 1991. Environmental assessment from a neuropsychological perspective. In: Grling, T., Evans, G.W. (Eds.), Environment, cognition and action: An integrated
approach. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 111-147.
Larco, N., Steiner, B., Stockard, J., West, A., 2012. Pedestrian-friendly environments and active travel for residents of multifamily housing. Environ. Behav. 44, 303333.
Lenntorp, B., 1976. Paths in Spacetime Environments: A Timegeographic Study of Movement Possibilities of Individuals/by Bo Lenntorp. Royal University of Lund, Dept. of
Geography, Lund.
Malm Stadskontor, 2008a. Omrdesfakta Dammfri.
Malm Stadskontor, 2008b. Omrdesfakta Lorensborg.
Malm Stadskontor, 2008c. Omrdesfakta Rnneholm.
Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370396.
Matan, A., Newman, P., 2012. Jan Gehl and New Visions for Walkable Australian Cities. Special Edition A Future Beyond the Car? vol. 17.
Middleton, J., 2011. Im on autopilot, I just follow the route: exploring the habits, routines, and decision-making practices of everyday urban mobilities. Environ. Plann.
A 43, 2857.
Mckenberger, U., 2011. Local time policies in Europe. Time Soc. 20, 241273.
Neutens, T., Schwanen, T., Witlox, F., 2010. The prism of everyday life: towards a new research agenda for time geography. Transport Rev. 31, 2547.
Nilsson, G., 2004. Trafc Safety Dimensions and the Power Model to Describe the Effect of Speed on Safety, Lund University.
Perchoux, C., Chaix, B., Cummins, S., Kestens, Y., 2013. Conceptualization and measurement of environmental exposure in epidemiology: accounting for activity space related
to daily mobility. Health Place 21, 8693.
Pikora, T.J., Bull, F.C., Jamrozik, K., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R.J., 2002. Developing a reliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical
activity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 23, 187194.
Pooley, C.G., Horton, D., Scheldeman, G., Tight, M., Jones, T., Chisholm, A., Harwatt, H., Jopson, A., 2011. Household decision-making for everyday travel: a case study of
walking and cycling in Lancaster (UK). J. Transport Geogr. 19, 16011607.
Rainham, D., McDowell, I., Krewski, D., Sawada, M., 2010. Conceptualizing the healthscape: contributions of time geography, location technologies and spatial ecology to
place and health research. Soc. Sci. Med. 70, 668676.
Risser, R., Lehner, U., 1998. Acceptability of Speeds and Speed Limits to Drivers and Pedestrians/Cyclists. (Master Deliverable vol. 6.
Saarloos, D., Kim, J.-E., Timmermans, H., 2009. The built environment and health: introducing individual space-time behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 6, 17241743.
Saelens, B.E., Handy, S.L., 2008. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 40, S550.
Schwanen, T., Kwan, M.-P., Ren, F., 2008. How xed is xed? Gendered rigidity of spacetime constraints and geographies of everyday activities. Geoforum 39, 21092121.
Singleton, P.A., 2013. A Theory of Travel Decision-Making with Applications for Modeling Active Travel Demand. Portland State University.
Southworth, M., 2005. Designing the walkable city. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 131, 246257.
Statistics Sweden, 2013. Antal invnare per kvadratkilometer, 31 December 2012 jmfrt med 31 December 2011.
Sundquist, K., Eriksson, U., Kawakami, N., Skog, L., Ohlsson, H., Arvidsson, D., 2011. Neighborhood walkability, physical activity, and walking behavior: the Swedish
neighborhood and physical activity (SNAP) study. Soc. Sci. Med. 72, 12661273.
Trivector Trafc, 2009. Malmbornas resvanor och attityder till trak och milj 2008. Trivector Trafc.
Trumpeter, N.N., Wilson, D.K., 2013. Positive action for todays health (PATH): sex differences in walking and perceptions of the physical and social environment.
Environ. Behav..
Van Holle, V., Deforche, B., Van Cauwenberg, J., Goubert, L., Maes, L., Van de Weghe, N., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., 2012. Relationship between the physical environment and
different domains of physical activity in European adults: a systematic review. BMC Pub. Health 12, 807.
Vojnovic, I., 2006. Building communities to promote physical activity: a multiscale geographical analysis. Geograska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 88, 6790.