Walkable Neighborhoods

Figures & data

Figure 1. Structural model tested simultaneously across four age groups, describing direct and indirect effects of walkability and other control variables on happiness. Direct effects are indicated using thick lines and indirect, mediated pathways are indicated using thin lines.

Table 1 Mean differences between high and low walkable neighborhoods for a range of resident outcomes and perceptions.

		Mean	SD	t	p (Two-tailed)
Difficult to use public transportation	Low walkable	2.36	1.18	14.52	.000
	High walkable	1.47	0.77
Number of cars available to use in household	Low walkable	1.40	0.89	4.45	.000
	High walkable	1.15	0.84
Household weekly fuel spend	Low walkable	43.51	36.71	6.18	.000
	High walkable	29.36	32.55
Many different routes for walking from place to place in neighborhood	Low walkable	3.31	1.25	−10.81	.000
	High walkable	4.05	0.98
Sufficiently wide, good-quality footpaths	Low walkable	3.81	1.17	1.40	.161
	High walkable	3.71	1.19
Pedestrian crossings/pedestrian lights to help walkers	Low walkable	3.35	1.30	−4.36	.000
	High walkable	3.68	1.20
Large car parks in front of shops and businesses	Low walkable	3.35	1.22	16.06	.000
	High walkable	2.17	1.16
Many inviting, locally owned shops	Low walkable	2.99	1.22	−9.07	.000
	High walkable	3.67	1.21
People about all day and in the evening shopping or visiting	Low walkable	2.89	1.33	−10.17	.000
	High walkable	3.71	1.27
Is a unique area with personality and character	Low walkable	3.02	1.19	−14.92	.000
	High walkable	4.08	1.10
My local neighborhood has a village feel to it	Low walkable	2.62	1.35	−12.42	.000
	High walkable	3.67	1.39
Walkability (number of destinations)	Low walkable	12.14	3.47	−16.50	.000
	High walkable	15.18	1.64

Note: Responses for Difficult to use public transportation ranged from 1 = very easy to 5 = very difficult; No. cars available in household ranged from 0 to 4 or more; Household fuel spend used an opened-ended/fill-in-the-blank response; Walkability listed 16 destinations (see Table 2); responses to all other questions above ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Figure 2. Examples of high walkable and low walkable neighborhoods. (a) High walkable neighborhood (photo credit: Sarah Rock, TU Dublin; see Rock et al., 2021); (b) Low walkable neighborhood (photo credit: Lorraine D’Arcy, TU Dublin).

Table 2 Predictors of happiness.

Variable	Item(s)	Response options
Happiness (dependent variable)	“All things considered, how happy are you right now?”	Range from 1 = not at all happy to 5 = very happy
Neighborhood walkability	The number of destinations a respondent reported being able to walk to without too much trouble.	A total of 16 possible destinations available for selection (e.g., coffee shop, a church or place of worship, a park, etc.)
Health	“In general, would you say that your health is…?”	Range from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent
Crime	“How satisfied are you with feeling safe from crime in your neighborhood?”	Range from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied
Trust	“Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful or that they are mostly just looking out for themselves?”	0 = try to be helpful and 1 = looking out for themselves
Attractive sights in neighborhood	“In your neighborhood, are there many attractive sights such as gardens, trees, green spaces, attractive buildings, and views?”	Range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree
Satisfaction with neighborhood appearance	“How satisfied are you with the appearance of your neighborhood?”	Range from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied
Employment	What is your current job status?	0 = no, 1 = yes (based upon seven categories)
Education	What is your highest level of education completed to date?	1= some primary or no schooling to 5 = postgraduate degree (MA/PhD or similar)
Married (or living with a partner)?	Are you?	0 = no, 1 = yes

Table 3 Descriptive statistics.

Indicator	18–35 Years		36–45 Years		46–60 Years		60+ Years
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Happiness	4.01	0.91	3.90	0.92	4.00	0.95	4.18	0.88
Health	3.78	0.89	3.64	0.91	3.48	1.07	3.20	0.88
Education	5.42	1.29	5.42	1.46	4.69	1.54	4.13	1.86
Feelings of safety from crime	3.55	1.18	3.36	1.18	3.57	1.18	3.59	1.16
Trust	1.30	0.46	1.25	0.435	1.22	0.41	1.14	0.35
Walkability of neighborhood	13.40	3.10	13.25	3.16	14.41	2.42	14.18	3.52
Satisfaction with neighborhood appearance	3.45	1.25	3.47	1.24	3.70	1.15	3.77	1.13
Many attractive sights in neighborhood	3.16	1.29	3.10	1.38	3.52	1.45	3.46	1.42

Notes: Means and standard deviations for the four age groups across measures included in the study. See Table 2 for variable descriptions and response scales.

Table 4 Common and unique path effects across four age groups.

	Estimate	SE	Est./SE	p Value
Common effects for all four age groups
Happiness ← Health	0.165	0.035	4.711	.000
Happiness ← Education	0.008	0.022	0.385	.700
Happiness ← Married	0.120	0.061	1.980	.048
Happiness ← Unemployed	−0.250	0.126	−1.983	.047
Happiness ← Crime	0.015	0.006	2.604	.009
Happiness ← Trust	−0.429	0.080	−5.385	.000
Happiness ← Appearance	0.137	0.038	3.648	.000
Happiness ← Attractive sites	0.044	0.029	1.536	.124
Appearance ← Crime	0.073	0.006	11.990	.000
Appearance ← Attractive sites	0.318	0.033	9.520	.000
Effects for adults aged 18–35 years
Happiness ← Walkability	0.030	0.017	1.809	.070
Trust ← Walkability	−0.018	0.010	−1.847	.065
Health ← Walkability	0.001	0.018	0.037	.971
Appearance ← Walkability	0.038	0.018	2.056	.040
Effects for adults aged 36–45 years
Happiness ← Walkability	0.061	0.019	3.219	.001
Trust ← Walkability	−0.015	0.010	−1.542	.123
Health ← Walkability	0.022	0.022	0.982	.326
Appearance ← Walkability	0.039	0.023	1.704	.088
Effects for adults aged 46–60 years
Happiness ← Walkability	−0.006	0.022	−0.254	.800
Trust ← Walkability	−0.035	0.014	−2.523	.012
Health ← Walkability	0.062	0.029	2.167	.030
Appearance ← Walkability	0.039	0.024	1.635	.102
Effects for adults aged 60+ years
Happiness ← Walkability	−0.027	0.014	−1.896	.058
Trust ← Walkability	−0.013	0.011	−1.217	.223
Health ← Walkability	0.067	0.020	3.403	.001
Appearance ← Walkability	0.056	0.029	1.911	.056

Note: Arrows (←) indicate that the variable at the tail of the arrow, in each case, influences the variable at the top of arrow. See Figure 1 for corresponding path model showing all arrows in the model.

Rock, S., D’Arcy, L., Reid, O., & O’Connor, D. (2021). DLR COVID-19 mobility review. Evaluation and review of the phase 1 Covid-19 mobility and public realm works undertaken by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council (DLRCoCo). Interim findings June 2021. https://www.tudublin.ie/media/website/news/2021/main-news/TU-Dublin--DLR-COVID-19-Mobility-Review-FINAL-RESIZED.pdf

 Google Scholar