‘Cul-de-sacs make you fat’: homebuyer and land developer perceptions of neighbourhood walkability, bikeability, livability, vibrancy, and health

ABSTRACT

Academics use ‘walkability’, ‘healthy’, ‘bikeability’, ‘vibrancy’, and ‘livability’ to describe neighbourhood design that support health and wellbeing. These labels are communicated in the media and real estate and land development marketing materials, yet residents may not use these labels when describing their neighbourhoods. Our qualitative study explored recent homebuyers’ and residential land developers’ perceptions of these neighbourhood design labels. Twelve land developers (7 men; 5 women) and twelve homebuyers (7 men; 5 women) from three major cities (Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge) in Alberta, Canada, completed semi-structured telephone-interviews. Interview transcripts underwent content analysis. Land developers and homebuyers shared common perspectives of these labels, which had similarities with academic definitions. Participants described walkability as: (a) ease of movement, (b) contextual differences, and (c) connections; healthy as: (a) opportunities for activity, and (b) diversity; bikeability as: (a) supportive infrastructure, and (b) differing preferences; vibrancy as: (a) matches peoples’ values, and (b) supportive built features; and livability as: (a) all encompassing, and (b) safe and friendly. The features described were not mutually exclusive to any one-neighbourhood label. Our findings suggest that walkable and bikeable neighbourhoods are not necessarily vibrant or livable, nevertheless walkability, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability are qualities of a healthy neighbourhood.

KEYWORDS:

• Neighbourhood
• built environment
• qualitative
• land developer
• homebuyer
• urban design

This article is related to:

Research for city practice

Background

Neighbourhood built environments affect health and wellbeing (Renalds et al. 2010, Mouratidis 2018, McCormack et al. 2019a). Public health authorities recognize the development of health supportive built environments as a key strategy to improve population health (World Health Organization 1986, Public Health Agency of Canada 2017). The importance of health supportive built environments is also recognized by the urban planning professions (American Planning Association, 2017, Canadian Institute of Planners 2018). The Canadian Institute of Planners defines a healthy community as ‘a place where healthy built, social, economic, and natural environments give citizens the opportunity to live to their full potential regardless of their socially, culturally, or economically defined circumstances’. Different academic disciplines have developed formal conceptual labels to describe neighbourhood qualities (e.g. walkability, bikeability, livability, and vibrant) that reflect their affect on health and wellbeing (Miller et al. 2013, Talen and Koschinsky 2013, Pandey et al. 2013, Forsyth 2015, Braun and Malizia 2015, Krenn et al. 2015, Redaelli 2016, Barreca et al. 2020, Kellstedt et al. 2020).

Neighbourhood walkability embodies traversablility (e.g. convenience of walking and connectivity), compactness (e.g. proximal destinations within walking distance and density), safety (e.g. low crime or traffic-related), pedestrian infrastructure and amenities (e.g. sidewalks, benches), and appeal or aesthetics (e.g. diverse views and open space) – features that support walking (Forsyth 2015, Hall and Ram 2018). Bikeability, distinct from walkability (Muhs and Clifton 2016), is similar in that it has no agreed-upon universal definition (Muhs and Clifton 2015, Kellstedt et al. 2021). Accessibility to local destinations, bicycle-specific infrastructure (e.g. bikeways or cycle networks), flat topography, and bike routes separated from motor vehicle traffic can support cycling (Muhs and Clifton 2015, Kellstedt et al. 2021). Definitions of walkability and bikeability encapsulate built features important for transport-related walking and cycling (Yang et al. 2019); however, evidence suggests that walkability and bikeability might also support recreational walking and cycling (Heesch et al. 2012, 2015, McCormack et al. 2019b). Notably, perceived walkability and bikeability do not always align with objective measures of neighbourhood walkability and bikeability (Orstad et al. 2017). Perceived walkability or bikeability may be as important as the built form in determining physical activity (Humpel et al. 2004, Ma et al. 2014, Jack and McCormack 2014).

In the academic literature, researchers have labeled neighbourhoods as having ‘livability’(Lloyd et al. 2016, Badland and Pearce 2019). Unlike walkability and bikeability that reflect a sub-set of physical activity supportive built features, livability encapsulates a multitude of built, social, and socio-economic environment characteristics that together influence the physical, psycho-social, and emotional experiences of residents (Lloyd et al. 2016). Despite no universal definition, livability reflects built and social features and their influence on the experiences and perceptions of people that interact with these features (Lloyd et al. 2016). Neighbourhood crime, safety, transport, housing, employment, and income are posited to contribute to livability (Lowe et al. 2015). Lowe et al. (2015) defined a liveable (and healthy) neighbourhood as, ‘ … safe, attractive, socially cohesive and inclusive, environmentally sustainable; with affordable and diverse housing linked by convenient public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure to employment, education, public space, local shops, health and community services, and leisure and cultural opportunities’. Liveable neighbourhoods affect health via multiple pathways including supporting physical activity (Badland and Pearce 2019). Walkability and bikeability are necessary but likely insufficient for neighbourhood livability (Shamsuddin et al. 2012, Riggs 2017, Badland and Pearce 2019).

While residents might readily recognize built and social environment features that support walking, cycling, social cohesion and interaction, and health, they may not necessarily use formal labels (e.g. walkability, bikeability, livability, and vibrancy), when describing their neighbourhoods. Notably, public perception of some neighbourhood labels, such as walkability, align closely with the definitions used in academia (Montemurro et al. 2011, Salvo et al. 2018). Nevertheless, ways in which the public perceive and understand the quality of neighborhoods is important given these labels (e.g. livable, walkable) are used in real estate marketing materials targeting home-seekers (Remax 2020) and mentioned in the media (Buckley 2010, Clark et al. 2010, White 2018, Cook 2020). Other evidence suggests that real estate agents infrequently use formal labels such as walkability, bikeability, livability, vibrancy, and healthy when communicating with potential home-buyers in the Canadian context (McCormack et al. 2020).

Despite economic incentives primarily driving land developer decisions, these practitioners are responsible for implementing community design plans and building neighbourhood infrastructure conforming to government planning guidelines and policies while meeting market demands (Grant 2009, Clark et al. 2010, Carnoske et al. 2010). Among key stakeholders involved in the process of informing, designing, and experiencing health supportive neighbourhoods, land developers appear to be the least studied group (Grant 2009, Clark et al. 2010, Carnoske et al. 2010, Guthrie and Fan 2016). Health is not necessarily their primary focus; nevertheless, residential land developers recognize the built features that contribute to health supportive neighbourhoods (Grant 2009, Clark et al. 2010, Guthrie and Fan 2016). Moreover, land developers use labels such as livable, walkable, and vibrant when advertising master-planned communities to potential homebuyers (e.g. https://www.brookfieldresidential.com/new-homes/alberta/calgary-and-area; https://hellowestdistrict.com/community/).

This study complements previous research our team has undertaken exploring the perspectives and meanings of walkability, healthy, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability among real estate professionals (McCormack et al. 2020). We extend these previous findings here by exploring these perspectives among two other important stakeholder groups in relation to neighbourhood design – i.e. homebuyers and residential land developers. There is lack of consensus in terminology and definitions among stakeholders when describing neighbourhood qualities related to health and wellbeing (Talen and Koschinsky 2013, Forsyth 2015). Thus, this lack of consensus may lead to misalignment between homebuyer expectations and the revealed qualities of the neighbourhoods in which they choose to reside. This misalignment can have negative implications on lifestyle and health decision-making (Schwanen and Mokhtarian 2005, Badland et al. 2012). The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore recent homebuyers’ and residential land developers’ perceptions of walkability, healthy, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability in relation to neighbourhood design. Our aim is to generate novel evidence about the similarities and differences in the ways in which homebuyers and land developers perceive and understand different neighbourhood qualities and labels. This evidence has the potential to be integrated into communication strategies for informing and educating homebuyers and land developers about the importance of neighbourhood qualities that support health and wellbeing.

Methods

Study design

The methodology has been described elsewhere (McCormack et al. 2020). Briefly, we employed qualitative description as the study design to address the research purpose. Qualitative description is a research approach that prioritises the presentation of facts (i.e. participant perspectives) as means to comprehensively summarize and describe a particular phenomenon (Sandelowski 2000). The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (REB19-1069) and the University of Alberta Research Ethics Board (Pro00109306) approved the study.

Recruitment

We distributed recruitment materials (media, newsletters, blogs, and emails) to land developers and recent homebuyers in the cities of Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge (Alberta, Canada). Recruitment materials were circulated through real estate associations (e.g. Realtors Association of Edmonton, Calgary Real Estate Board, Lethbridge and District Association of Realtors) and agencies (e.g. 2% Reality, Grand Realty), land developer associations (e.g. BILD Calgary region) and companies (e.g. Brookfield Residential, Shane Homes), and advertisements in local print media (Coffee News) and on the University of Calgary website. Realtors were also asked to share study information with their clients. Interested participants contacted the research coordinator via email. The research coordinator then scheduled telephone-interviews with eligible participants. Land developers were eligible to participate in the study if some or all of their work involved building new residential communities. Homebuyers were eligible to participate if they relocated within the past 2 months. Participants received a $50 gift card after completing the telephone-interview.

Participants

Twenty-four adults including 12 land developers (7 men; 5 women) and 12 homebuyers (7 men; 5 women) participated in the study. The sample included representation from the three cities (land developers: 4 Edmonton, 6 Calgary, 2 Lethbridge; homebuyers: 4 Edmonton, 8 Calgary). Land developers were between 32 and 56 years of age and had various levels of post-secondary education (e.g. Bachelors of Engineering, Masters in Urban Planning). Land developers had between 5 and 30 years of industry experience and all were involved in residential planning and development. Several land developers were members of the Canadian Institute of Planners and specialized in developing master-planned communities. Homebuyers were between 24 and 58 years of age and had various levels of education (e.g. high-school diploma to graduate degree). All homebuyers had recently purchased single-family homes within the past 2-months. To support anonymity, we replaced the names of participants with gender-neutral pseudonyms.

Data generation

Participants engaged in a one-on-one semi-structured telephone interview. Interviews are particularly useful in research that utilizes qualitative description to highlight detailed perspectives of participants (Sandelowski 2000). We used telephone interviews for their convenience, as participants were dispersed across the province of Alberta. According to Irvine et al. (2013), telephone interviews offer an opportunity to engage in in-depth discussion with participants similar to face-to-face interviews. All interviews were conducted by a research assistant (AN) with expertise in qualitative research approaches. We conducted interviews between November 2019 and February 2020, and each interview lasted between 40 and 60 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

As described elsewhere (McCormack et al. 2020), the semi-structured interview guide consisted of six questions and five corresponding sub-questions that related to each of the key neighbourhood terms of interest (i.e. walkability, healthy, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability). Previous studies that investigated various stakeholder’s understandings of concepts related to the built environment informed the development of our interview guide (Clark et al. 2010, Stankov et al. 2017). The semi-structured interview guide provided the interviewer with an opportunity to probe further into specific areas that the participants discussed.

Data analysis

We used content analysis to analyze the transcripts (Sandelowski 2000, Elo and Kyngas 2008). Specifically, we used Elo and Kyngas’ (Elo and Kyngas 2008) three phase inductive approach (i.e. preparation, organization, and reporting). During the preparation phase, the unit of analysis was selected (i.e. the words of participants). The transcripts were then read by AN and TM numerous times to establish in-depth familiarity with the data. The organizing phase involved coding the transcripts. AN lead the process of ‘open coding’ whereby she recorded notes in the margins of all transcripts; the notes are recorded in an effort to describe all aspects of the content (Elo and Kyngas 2008). TM also engaged in a process of open coding, and after both team members were complete, they met to discuss similarities and differences in their codes. AN and TM met to discuss the categories, and to classify such categories into higher order themes under each of the key terms (i.e. walkability, healthy, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability). AN and TM finalised the higher order themes with another team member (GM). In terms of reporting, we described the themes using rich, thick descriptions from the direct quotes of participants.

Multiple strategies to ensure trustworthiness of the findings were used. Methodological coherence (Morse et al. 2002), was satisfied by aligning all aspects of the research process (i.e. research question, study design, sampling technique, data generation, and analysis). Rich, thick descriptions from the perspective of the participants’ were highlighted in the reporting phase of the content analysis (Creswell 2013). Triangulation was achieved with the involvement of multiple investigators (Creswell 2013). This type of triangulation supports breadth within the research analysis, which is ideal for qualitative description studies (Sandelowski 2000, Creswell 2013).

Results

The perspectives shared by land developers and homebuyers provided insight into their perceptions of walkability, healthy, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability in relation to neighbourhood design. Land developers described how these concepts related to their field of work, while homebuyers described these concepts and their influence on their recent home purchases. Themes, supported by direct quotes, represent each of the five concepts (i.e. walkability, healthy, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability). Specifically, walkability was described as: (a) ease of movement, (b) contextual differences, and (c) connections; healthy was described as: (a) opportunities for activity, and (b) diversity; bikeability was described as: (a) supportive infrastructure, and (b) differing preferences; vibrancy was described as: (a) matches peoples’ values, and (b) supportive built features; and livability was described as: (a) all encompassing, and (b) safe and friendly.

Walkability

All participants were aware of, and had used, the term walkability. Land developers discussed how they considered walkability in each of their projects. Land developers noted that designing for walkability is often an implicit component of municipality guidelines and a box that needed to be ‘ticked’ during initial proposal process and subsequent development. Homebuyers discussed how they had seen or heard walkability on television, in real estate listings, or while consulting with realtors or new development sales professionals. Participants perceived walkability as: (a) ease of movement, (b) contextual differences, and (c) connections.

Ease of movement

All participants described walkability in terms of ease of movement within a neighbourhood. Ease of movement was considered important for both recreational (e.g. walking the dog) and transportation purposes (e.g. walking kids to school). Riley (homebuyer) suggested, ‘walkability is how easy it is to get around a community or neighbourhood by walking, whether that’s walking with your dog, or walking with a stroller, or kind of just walking around … walk[ing] to grocery stores, or maybe a local park.’ Several participants noted that having access to neighbourhood schools, parks, and commercial areas was important for ease of movement. To foster exploration and ease of movement through a neighbourhood or community Alex (land developer) suggested, ‘ … walkability deals with some thoughtful design on how individuals can move through and between communities without having to use a vehicle. I think something with a dedicated, purposefully, built pedestrian, cycle, or non-car corridor is important for walkability. [That and] an appropriate and easily navigable circulation that leads to some of the features of that community – Be it a commercial area, schools, parks, or open space.’ Participants highlighted the importance of readily available and well-connected path systems for facilitating movement through the neighbourhood. Land developers and homebuyers emphasized connections to amenities (e.g. grocery stores, and schools) and leisure spaces (e.g. lakes, and dog parks).

Contextual differences

Land developers and homebuyers highlighted how walkability is contextual and how the definition depends on the individual or community and their needs. Land developers described the importance of understanding the needs of the housing market when developing for walkability. For example, as Alex (land developer) mentions, ‘It’s all contextual. Like, if someone takes a definition of walkability from Manhattan, or downtown Toronto and tries to apply it in an Edmonton context, it’s not going to stand up. I think anyone who’s properly defined it, they used the local context, to add colour to it and make sure that everyone is understanding what it means because it’s a term that comes from a geographic location. It’s like cold, cold means something very different for someone in Edmonton or Calgary as it does for someone in Florida or Mexico City. But it is still the same term. I think walkable is very similar that way … you’re actually being irresponsible if you don’t look at the local context when you apply the term walkability, and I find it quite frustrating when people criticize locations for not being walkable, but they’re applying a completely inappropriate context for walkability … It is [also] different in each part of the city. The downtown is different … a mature neighbourhood is different … masterplan community is different.’

While participants suggested that perceptions of walkability differed from person-to-person, homebuyers often described a walkable neighbourhood as safe. Jordan (homebuyer) shared, ‘walkability is something where it’s safe for somebody to be able to walk about their neighbourhoods without necessarily running into mainstream traffic.’ Similarly, Parker (homebuyer) described her neighbourhood as walkable because ‘it has a more residential feel to it. And that it is like, safe to walk around most hours of the day. So even in the evenings you feel safe to walk. I would call that a walkable neighbourhood.’

Connections

Participants described the types of connections that a walkable neighbourhood offered. As Cameron (land developer) suggested, communities designed to promote walkability ‘create a better community that encourages walking.’ Walkable neighbourhoods connected residents with amenities and other community members. Kelsey (land developer) explained, ‘We try to design in such a way that you wouldn’t have to just walk from one end [of a neighbourhood] to the other, that they’re kind of connected, like there’s a large loop that usually passes through a community area that can help to facilitate community engagement.’ Taylor (land developer) shared that in addition to connections, wayfinding is important for walkability. To promote wayfinding, Taylor described how it is impactful to incorporate public art pieces or optimize key landscape features, ‘The other thing I like to look at is whether or not public art could be interspersed, or interpretive signage used, or something of that nature so that you could have a sense of where you are at all times. Maybe it’s even as simple as you can see the sun or the mountains by walking from where you are.’

Homebuyers and land developers highlighted that connections alone were not sufficient to make a neighbourhood walkable. They described how it is also important to have tree-lined streets or something that diminishes the harshness of the road and ample lighting. Several land developers highlighted that walkability is usually associated with a grid-network but that this street design included increased road maintenance costs and becomes monotonous.

Healthy

Several participants explained how ‘healthy’ was not typically used to describe neighbourhood design. Land developers and homebuyers suggested that compared to other terms (e.g. walkability and bikeability) it was difficult to describe neighbourhood design in relation to health. Nevertheless, when describing what could constitute a healthy neighbourhood, participants perceived characteristics related to: (a) opportunities for activity, and (b) diversity.

Opportunities for activity

Participants described opportunities for both ‘active’ and ‘passive’ recreational activities as important for a healthy neighbourhood. They described active opportunities as access to baseball diamonds, soccer fields, parks, and recreation centers. Participants also mentioned community associations playing a key role in supporting such infrastructure. Participants described passive opportunities for activity as safe and welcoming spaces that encouraged walking, biking, and socializing. As an example of how the neighbourhood may affect the health, Elliot (land developer) shared the theory that ‘cul-de-sacs make you fat’. To expand on this idea, participants such as Casey (land developer) acknowledged the importance of passive spaces (e.g. green spaces), but argued that it is also important to think about how people interact with nature or use such spaces. A focus on programming, for example, is important to consider when developing a healthy neighbourhood. As Casey (land developer) shared, ‘It’s not just any kind of amenities, like a passive giant green space, I don’t think is very healthy. I think something that’s programmed is healthy. Whether you live downtown and in a high-rise condo, or you live in suburbia, and it just house after house after house, we [land developers] have an opportunity to provide an interaction with nature. I think that’s a healthy community.’

Diversity

Participants acknowledged that just because communities were designed to promote health, the individual (i.e. resident) is responsible to access local amenities and facilities. Taylor (land developer) suggested, ‘as planners you try to create areas that facilitate a healthy community, but it is up to the individual to take advantage of it.’ Although all participants alluded that healthy neighbourhoods are a by-product of a walkable and/or vibrant community, many homebuyers suggested that it was not a major factor in choosing their new home. As Riley (homebuyer) shared, I don’t think [healthy] would impact my purchase. I think in relation to the other things like walkability would have been a 10. Health would have been a one.” Similarly, Hayden (homebuyer) noted ‘I think it does help but it’s not crucial to have that in the area. There’s so much construction that’s been done to cater towards leisure activities that I don’t think it’s really necessary to have.’

Perceptions of a ‘healthy’ neighbourhood were associated with housing types. Homebuyers and land developers discussed the importance of varied housing types and price points in a neighbourhood. For example, Avery (homebuyer) suggested,‘[having] single family dwellings, but apartments, and maybe townhomes as well … a variety of dwelling types. Having that could attract people from various stages in their lives and lead to healthy neighbourhoods.’ Similarly, Devon (land developer) explained, ‘To me, a healthy community is a community where you have a variety of housing products, i.e. you can buy your first home there, you can move up second home, you can retire there – it brings a broad demographic base into your community; thereby, providing a lot of diversity to it.’ In addition to housing variety, a healthy community also provided a variety of recreational opportunities. As Kerry (land developer) explained, ‘we just try to create some sort of a balanced neighbourhood that will create housing opportunities, recreational opportunities, more natural spaces intermixed within there.’

Bikeability

Participants mentioned how bikeability was similar to walkability. As Drew (land developer) explained, ‘bikeability is the same thing as walkability, just with a bigger scope. Walkability, for me, is 500 m to 1 km radius around a property. Whereas bikeability is double that.’ Despite their similarities, participants perceived two key features specifically related to bikeability: (a) supportive infrastructure, and (b) differing preferences

Supportive infrastructure

Participants described infrastructure needed to support bikeability. In describing what constitutes a bike-able neighbourhood, Alex (land developer) said, ‘it’s minimizing the number of street crossings or at least major street crossings.’ Echoing similar sentiments, Cameron (land developer) suggested, ‘bikeability is the ability to get to one place to another, in a safe manner, on a bike.’ Similarly, Leslie (homebuyer) described how roads ‘aren’t super bike-friendly around [her]’ and explained how it is crucial to have dedicated bike paths, ‘So, dedicated bike paths and the ability to go on a continuous journey, on your bike without running into any sort of interruption through that system. Again, the ability to get to amenities would be important for bikeability. But, I think the biggest piece is the dedicated or multiuse paths.’

Many participants acknowledged existing controversy regarding bikeability, particularly in terms of the installment of bike lanes and other bike-related infrastructure. However, Taylor (land developer) suggested, ‘I think that bikeability only works in community design if there is the infrastructure to support the person parking their bike at the destination they need to be at, that’s probably missing in the conversation.’ Several homebuyers attested to Taylor’s suggestion. Jordan (homebuyer) shared, ‘If you want to have bikeability, you need to have attached garages to the homes because people hardly ever park in the alleys. If the neighbourhood has cars parking in the street, or they have two cars that don’t fit in the garage, I can barely squeeze by going in the opposite direction. There’s no way that a cyclist will be able to ride there without fearing for their life. So, you’re stuck to the multiuse trails which, if you’re an avid biker and are able to go for a long distance, you’ll be out of the neighbourhood within two minutes.’

Differing preferences

Land developers and homebuyers acknowledged bikeability as an important quality of a neighbourhood. However, participants described bikeability as subjective – i.e. what constitutes bikeability for one person might be different for someone else. As Terry (land developer) stated, ‘I don’t think there’s one option that fits all … there’s different preferences … some people want to be biking on a road, and some people don’t want to be biking on a road. Some people want to be biking along a ridge, like a private area where it’s more concealed. So, I think it’s subjective to the user. So, we always have to kind of allow for all kind of different options.’ Recognizing differences in personal preferences for bikeability, Sam (homebuyer) shared her perspective: ‘flat topography so that, you know, you’re not biking up the hill or down the hill … There’s a marking on the street that only bikes can pass on. There’s a lane designated for bikers.’

Vibrancy

Several land developers suggested that vibrancy is a ‘popular’ term used in their field – with a few even suggesting that it may be overused. Homebuyers recognized the term, but they were often unable to think of a time they used it during their home search. Participants perceived vibrancy as: (a) matches peoples’ values, and (b) supportive built features.

Matches peoples’ values

In describing a vibrant neighbourhood, participants highlighted how the look and feel of the neighbourhood had to align with the values of the people living within it. Several participants mentioned that what they considered vibrant might not be shared by everyone. Alex (land developer) shared, ‘ … there’s street life and there’s small commercial things at the corner that everyone can walk to, and it’s like a neighbourhood from downtown Toronto or New York, that’s what everyone’s idea vibrancy is. To me, an idea of vibrancy is a stable, safe, and healthy community that’s meeting the needs of the people that choose to live in it. Some people may think of vibrant communities is one that is quiet and is stable. I think you’ve got to look at what the community values are, for me, vibrancy doesn’t mean that you’ve got a wine bar down the street that you can walk to all the time. For me, it’s more so that you can connect with your neighbors or not. Different people have different values.’ Echoing Alex (land developer), Parker (homebuyer) shared her perceptions about vibrant neighbourhoods, “ … neighbourhoods that are revitalizing it’s a vibrant community, but it’s not the vibe that I was wanting to live in, per se, but maybe some people are looking for that. Maybe vibrancy has more of a spectrum, like vibrancy is different from person to person.

Amrit (homebuyer) perspective aligned with several homebuyer’s descriptions of vibrancy, ‘a vibrant community is more of a happening place, there is like a lot of activities and for families to do. Maybe a recreation center or library.’ Several participants highlighted the important role of community while emphasising their understanding of vibrancy. As Cameron (land developer) suggested, ‘ … You can create spaces and opportunities for vibrancy, but it only really comes out if the people are engaged in that community. It’s the people that live there. You can create good public spaces with strong design, but you need people to program it. You can’t design vibrancy, but you can create the opportunities for that to happen. Vibrancy is a human thing not a physical thing.’ Participants acknowledged the importance of community leagues in facilitating the use of neighbourhood spaces. However, Quinn (homebuyer) saw potential drawbacks to such sentiments, ‘The advantage is that there would be a sense of community. Everyone could go and meet in a spot. The disadvantage is that it could be costly, paying for fees and such. If there was a community league my community would be even more vibrant, but I would have to pay more monthly for it.’

Supportive built features

All land developers highlighted their role in creating opportunities for vibrancy through providing green spaces, gathering areas, and four season programmable areas. For example, Casey (land developer) shared, ‘we use [community name removed for anonymity] as an example [of a vibrant community], they have a lake. That is the key selling feature … They have a beach area where kids come swimming, where you can rent kayaks and paddle boats and fish from … And then in the winter, after reaches a certain depth of ice, you can go ice fishing … That to me is a vibrant community where the developer has invested in the amenities that are usable throughout the year.’ Several homebuyers expressed their appreciation for unique built features in their communities. As an example of what he thought was a well-designed, vibrant community, Adrian (homebuyer) shared, ‘there is a poppy field [in my neighbourhood] which is kind of different and adds to the vibrancy. Along the way they have some very unique structures and monuments that all tie in that military theme but definitely it is nice to see rather than the typical lake that you could walk around.’

Participants also described how paths and trails could contribute to neighbourhood vibrancy. Parker (homebuyer) mentioned that, ‘it just makes, like area more vibrant when you see people on bikes versus in cars.’ Dallas (homebuyer) shared similar sentiments; however, they explained how the phase of the community development could affect neighbourhood vibrancy, regardless of the planned built features, ‘It was difficult to see vibrancy in some newer neighbourhoods depending where in the building phase they were at. If it was completely done then when I went to see the places it was great, because you can actually see everything. You could see the vibrancy. But when they’re still in the process of building it’s really hard to see and envision it.’

Livability

Land developers and homebuyers struggled to define the term livability. Many suggested that livability encompassed their descriptions of the other neighbourhood qualities (i.e. walkability, healthy, bikeability, and vibrancy). As such, participant perceived livability as: (a) all encompassing and (b) safe and friendly.

All encompassing

When considering the characteristics of a livable neighbourhood, many participants drew on neighbourhood features they had previously described. For example, Taylor (land developer) suggested, ‘To me, [livability] is a hybrid of every other term you’ve just asked me – people and professionals use livability as an all encompassing. It is the fact that you want to live in that neighbourhood or that community. I think livability is also, “do I have my basic needs close by”.’ However, participants perceived different basic needs as they related to neighbourhood livability. For example, Quinn (homebuyer) shared, ‘to me it is snow removal and having lawns, driveways, sidewalks. You have a good amount of space, so you don’t feel cramped.’ Several participants suggested that the definition of livability varies from person to person. As Cameron (land developer) stated, ‘I would challenge people who use it as a defined word, as lots of assumptions are built into it. A planner might say a community is not live-able because it doesn’t have the boxes checked, but it works for the people.’

Safe and friendly

Several homebuyers perceived neighbourhood livability in terms of friendliness and safety. Jordan (homebuyer) suggested that, ‘[a livable neighbourhood] is a nice, friendly neighbourhood where you have access to everything, it’s a safe neighbourhood.’ Similarly, Kelsey (land developer), suggested, ‘[a livable neighbourhood] is someplace that you enjoy coming home to. A place that you’re proud to live, or a place you can connect with your neighbors. It’s having a safe, comfortable neighbourhood where you can raise your family.’ Expanding on this further, Ash (homebuyer) mentioned that a livable neighbourhood has ‘enough yard space and house space for my family, close to schools, elementary schools, and eventually upper year schools for my kids and inability to get to work relatively easily’. Similarly, Amrit (homebuyer) shared, ‘I would consider some areas of Calgary not livable in the sense that they’re not safe. There will be some places that I would not consider buying a house. I like being in the city and having the lifestyle where I can easily go out and not be scared at night. A place where you don’t feel that you always have to be on a lookout. So, that’s the reason why we moved where we did.’

Discussion

Our study explored land developer and homebuyer perceptions and understanding of commonly used labels to describe neighbourhood designs. Our findings suggest that land developers and homebuyers share common perspectives of neighbourhood walkability, bikeability, livability, vibrancy, and health. Their perspectives are also congruent with formal definitions of similar neighbourhood labels described in the academic literature (Miller et al. 2013, Talen and Koschinsky 2013, Pandey et al. 2013, Forsyth 2015, Braun and Malizia 2015, Krenn et al. 2015, Muhs and Clifton 2015, Lowe et al. 2015, Redaelli 2016, Hall and Ram 2018, Barreca et al. 2020, Kellstedt et al. 2020, 2021). The built and social environment features described by land developers and homebuyers were not mutually exclusive to any one-neighbourhood label. As such, there were similarities in the identified built and social environment features that support neighbourhood walkability, bikeability, livability, vibrancy, and health yet their appeared to be a conceptual hierarchy – i.e. walkability and bikeability are necessary for vibrancy, which is required for livability and in turn required for a health supportive neighbourhood (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationships between neighbourhood qualities: walkability, bikeability, vibrancy, livability, and health supportive.

Land developers and homebuyers were familiar with the term walkability. This finding is noteworthy given that public use of this term may not be that common. For instance, in a US study, Guhathakurta et al. (2019) found that among neighbourhood-related Twitter Tweets (social media), only 8% of Tweets specifically mentioned walkability. In alignment with academic definitions that link walkability with the properties of traversablility and compactness (Forsyth 2015, Hall and Ram 2018), land developers and homebuyers described walkability as the ease of movement via walking. Homebuyers in particular, noted the importance of walkability for many purposes including transportation, leisure walking and dog walking. Previous studies (Ferdinand et al. 2012, Zuniga-Teran et al. 2017, Salvo et al. 2018) highlight the importance of a range of built features that facilitate walking. Our participants mentioned amenities, connectivity, destinations, aesthetics (e.g. art, trees, and attractive views), wayfinding aids (e.g. signs) and traffic as contributing to walkability – common attributes previously identified in the academic literature (Forsyth 2015, Hall and Ram 2018). Land developers and homebuyers discussed walkability in terms of safety, notably in relation to traffic. Including measures of traffic safety in walkability and bikeability indices might be important given that walkable and bikeable neighbourhoods have been found to be positively associated with the exposure-adjusted risk of pedestrian-motorist and cyclist-motorist crashes (Osama et al. 2020). Notably, walkability indices derived from people’s perceptions of the neighbourhood often capture traffic-related barriers (Cerin et al. 2009, Sallis et al. 2010). Given the importance of traffic safety as a barrier to walking, including traffic indicators in existing objective walkability indices could improve their predictive validity.

As found previously among realtors (McCormack et al. 2020), land developers and homebuyers considered walkability and bikeability to be similar concepts but differing in their geographical scale. In contrast, the academic literature proposes that walkability and bikeability are distinct, and not just in their geographical scale, but in terms of accessibility, infrastructure, and safety (Muhs and Clifton 2015, 2016, Kellstedt et al. 2021). Evidence also suggests that walkability and bikeability are important for both transportation and recreational walking and cycling, respectively (Heesch et al. 2012, 2015, Yang et al. 2019, McCormack et al. 2019b), yet while our study participants recognized the importance of walkability for transportation and recreation their discussion of bikeability tended to focus on transportation only. Participants nevertheless identified specific built features that contributed to bikeability (e.g. bike and mutli-use paths, dedicated bike networks, bike facilities at destinations, separation from traffic, flat topography) that also aligned with previous evidence (Muhs and Clifton 2015, Salvo et al. 2018, Kellstedt et al. 2021). Notably, we found participants discussed the social aspect of bikeability to a lesser extent than in their descriptions of walkability. This might suggest that within the North American context, cycling might provide fewer opportunities for social interaction than walking and thus designing bikeable neighbourhoods without considering walkability may have less potential to provide social and health benefits. Like walkability, participants also noted that perceptions of bikeability differ from person-to-person. Eliciting perceptions about bikeability and walkability from current and future residents in the designing and planning process could ensure that the neighbourhood includes built features that meet the needs and preferences of residents. Moreover, our findings suggest that more needs to be done in terms of educating both the public (e.g. potential homebuyers) and land developers about the health, social, and economic benefits of neighbourhood walkability and bikeability. Doing so may elevate the priority of walkability and bikeability in homebuyer decision-making.

The subjective experiences of people is also considered an important component of livability (Lloyd et al. 2016). Our participants mentioned that the experience or preference for livability is personal. Similar to academic definitions of livability (Lowe et al. 2015), participants recognized livability as multi-dimensional or all encompassing. They acknowledged the importance of walkability, bikeability, and vibrancy in creating livable neighbourhoods. However, participant perspectives went beyond recognising the built features; livability also reflected enjoyment of the neighbourhood, sense of community, friendliness, social interactions, safety, and affordability. Similarly, participants considered vibrancy as a concept that is broader than just the built features contained within a neighbourhood. They aligned vibrancy with the ‘feel’ of a neighbourhood, personal values, and interests and emphasized the importance of the social environment (e.g. community programs). These notions of vibrancy are generally well accepted (Jacobs , Montgomery 1998). Among land developers, vibrancy was considered a ‘popular’ term and they incorporated features that support neighbourhood vibrancy into their designs (e.g. public spaces and recreational amenities). However, land developers and homebuyers also perceived that vibrancy emerged from the interactions between the built environment and people. In an Australian study, Nathan et al. (2013) found that compared with conventional neighbourhoods, liveable neighbourhood designs were marketed as being more walkable. Our findings suggest that walkability, in particular, might be necessary for a vibrant or livable neighbourhood yet, speculating whether a neighbourhood will be vibrant or livable based solely from a community development plan is presumptuous. This is important to note as there are potential negative implications for physical activity, active transportation, health decisions, and well-being when residents’ preferences do not match the actual urban characteristics of their neighbourhood (Schwanen and Mokhtarian 2005, Badland et al. 2012, Mouratidis 2020).

‘Healthy’ was not a commonly used term for describing neighbourhoods. This is notable given that public health and urban planning associations endorse the creation of healthy communities (American Planning Association, 2017, World Health Organization 1986, Public Health Agency of Canada 2017, Canadian Institute of Planners 2018). Health is an abstract multi-dimensional concept (Huber et al. 2011) that provides little guidance about how neighbourhoods should be designed. The term also reflects an outcome impacted by, rather than a quality of, the neighbourhood environment. Despite health being an abstract concept, participants perceived a healthy neighbourhood to include experiences with nature, recreational opportunities, and community programs. Similar to vibrancy, participants considered health to be the resident’s responsibility (i.e. making use of the amenities and facilities offered in the neighbourhood). Nevertheless, participants perceived a healthy neighbourhood as having housing diversity and catering to people at different life-stages. This perspective of a healthy neighbourhood was in contrast to realtors, who reported social homogeneity as key to a healthy neighbourhood (e.g. similar home values, social ideals, and socioeconomic circumstances) (McCormack et al. 2020). Our findings suggest that labelling a neighbourhood as ‘healthy’ should be avoided unless the neighbourhood is linked directly with measured health indicators (e.g. physical activity) and that the term ‘health supportive neighbourhood’ be used instead. Walkability, bikeability, livability, and vibrancy appear to be prerequisites for a health supportive neighbourhood. Increasing public awareness about the built and social characteristics that contribute to a health supportive or a ‘healthy’ neighbourhood could lead to better informed decision-making regarding neighbourhood choice, which in turn could support residents’ health and wellbeing and over time improve population health.

Our study has several limitations. Land developers and homebuyers self-selected to participate in the study, and their perspectives may reflect the strongest opinions on the study topic. Land developers and homebuyers were recruited from three major urban centres from a single Canadian province, and therefore our findings may not be transferrable to other contexts (e.g. smaller urban centres or rural areas). Moreover, homebuyers had recently purchased single-family dwellings and their views may differ from those who recently purchased multi-family dwellings (i.e. apartments, condominiums). Our interview questions focused on the concepts of walkability, healthy, bikeability, vibrancy, and livability, however other labels used to describe neighbourhood design elsewhere (e.g. traditional design, transit-oriented design, suburban) may resonate more strongly with certain groups (e.g. land developers).

Conclusion

Land developers and homebuyers identified common built and social features that contribute to neighbourhood walkability, bikeability, livability, vibrancy, and health supportiveness, yet definitions and expectations of neighbourhoods with these qualities likely differ from person-to-person. Thus, caution is required when defining and operationalizing these neighbourhood qualities. Our findings suggest that walkable and bikeable neighbourhoods, while important, cannot guarantee a neighbourhood is livable and vibrant but that walkability, bikeability, livability, and vibrancy are qualities that are required for a health supportive neighbourhood. The hierarchical nature of the relationships between these neighbourhood qualities should inform how they are operationalized and estimated in future quantitative research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, GRM; methodology, GRM, T-LM, AN, and DG; formal analysis, T-LM and AN; data curation, DG; writing—original draft preparation, GRM, T-LM, AN, DG; writing—review and editing, GRM, T-LM, AN, DG; recruitment, DG; data collection, AN; funding acquisition, GRM. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Geolocation Information

Alberta, Canada

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Funding support for this study was provided by the Alberta Real Estate Foundation and from a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundations Scheme Grant (FDN-154331);

Notes on contributors

Gavin R. McCormack

Gavin R. McCormack, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary. His research program focusses on investigating the relationships between the built environment, active living, and health. He leads the Built Environment and Healthy Living Lab (https://www.behealthylivinglab.com/).

Autumn Nesdoly

Autumn Nesdoly is a Ph.D student in the Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation at the University of Alberta, Canada. Her research interests are broadly focused on enhancing the sport and physical education experiences of youth.

Dalia Ghoneim

Dalia Ghoneim, MPH Social Policy, BSc Kinesiology, is a research coordinator with the Built Environment and Healthy Living Lab (https://www.behealthylivinglab.com/) at the University of Calgary. She is passionate about promoting healthy lifestyles and physical activity.

Tara-Leigh McHugh

Tara-Leigh McHugh, Ph.D., is a professor in the Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation at the University of Alberta. Her program of research is focused on enhancing physical activity experiences, and she uses qualitative and collaborative research approaches to understand the psychosocial aspects of such experiences. E-mail: [email protected]