Do Neighborhood Walkability, Transit, and Parks Relate to Residents’ Life Satisfaction?

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Planners lack clarity about how they can promote the subjective wellbeing (SWB) of the communities they serve. In this research we use descriptive and econometric methods to explore the interconnections between three aspects of the objective and perceived neighborhood built environment (NBE)—walkability, transit, and parks—and one aspect of SWB—life satisfaction—drawing on a survey of 496 people in the Phoenix (AZ) region. Respondents who were more satisfied with the quantity of neighborhood parks and lived in objectively more walkable neighborhoods expressed higher life satisfaction. Park satisfaction is linked to other life satisfaction–promoting perceptions, including greater neighborhood social connection, nature engagement, exercise opportunities, and lower neighborhood disorder. However, what shapes links between life satisfaction and walkability is less clear. Notably, objective and perceived parks access and walkability were not strongly linked and an understudied factor—perceiving neighborhood geography narrowly—was linked to lower life satisfaction. Planners should be cautious in applying these findings because they do not derive from causal methods or fully account for the propensity of more satisfied people to feel more positively about their environments or live in neighborhoods with particular qualities. Future work should also consider how our findings apply to life satisfaction across diverse places and time.

Takeaway for practice: Life satisfaction is associated with neighborhood planning. Planning strategies that may increase residents’ opportunities for higher life satisfaction include a) engaging with communities to better understand and plan for parks that meet residents’ needs and b) enhancing neighborhood walkability. Planners should note that objective measures of the NBE, like walkability and parks, do not necessarily correspond to residents’ perceptions of these qualities. Further investigation into the causal links between the NBE and life satisfaction, including the complex roles that transit accessibility and resident perceptions of neighborhood geography play, is warranted.

Keywords:

• health
• neighborhood
• parks
• subjective wellbeing
• walkability

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank Abigail York for assisting with the survey design and implementation.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.

Notes

Notes

1 Respondents who did not perceive their neighborhood geography narrowly viewed their neighborhood as 1) “the area within a 15-min walk from [their] home” or 2) “an area larger than a 15-min walk from [their] home.”

2 More stable, lower poverty, and more linguistically homogenous neighborhoods may possess more social capital and identification among residents and a greater ability to prevent crime and promote personal security, which are conditions associated with SWB (Cutrona et al., 2005; Diener & Seligman, 2002; Dolan et al., 2008; Lelkes, 2006; Leung et al., 2013; Morris, 2011; Ross et al., 2019).

3 The outliers had low life satisfaction but characteristics generally associated with high life satisfaction, such as high neighborhood social capital and identification and satisfaction with exercise opportunities and access to nature. The outliers also had extremely low subjective walkability and lived in neighborhoods with low poverty rates but also greater transience. Four of the six outliers lived in the same neighborhood (PWR, a newer master-planned community in the outer-ring suburbs) in the same or adjacent block groups. All but one of the outliers perceived their neighborhood geography narrowly. The outliers also had higher educational attainment and rates of homeownership but lower household incomes.

4 These findings exceed expectations from the existing literature but are in line with other recent research on the objective and subjective built environment correlates of life satisfaction (e.g., Kent et al., 2017; see Technical Appendix, “Reverse Causality, Type I & II Error, and Statistical Power”).

Additional information

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant nos. DEB-1637590 and DEB-1832016, Central Arizona–Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Program (CAP LTER).

Notes on contributors

Deirdre Pfeiffer

DEIRDRE PFEIFFER, AICP ([email protected]), is an associate professor in the School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning at Arizona State University.

Meagan M. Ehlenz

MEAGAN M. EHLENZ, AICP ([email protected]), is an assistant professor in the School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning at Arizona State University.

Riley Andrade

RILEY ANDRADE ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate in the School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning at Arizona State University.

Scott Cloutier

SCOTT CLOUTIER ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University.

Kelli L. Larson

KELLI L. LARSON ([email protected]) is a professor in the School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University.