Design Quality Preferences for Walking in Youth in a Rural Setting

Abstract

Studies demonstrate a relationship between built environment features and walking among youth. However, most research has focused on measuring objective features of the built environment, and fewer studies have looked at the more subjective features such as design quality that may influence how youth experience walking. Furthermore, many instruments that measure design quality are based on expert approaches; few incorporate user-based (youth) feedback. In this pilot study, the authors used focus group methods with a youth panel (2 groups with 16 total participants) to investigate user-based opinion of design quality variables of the built environment that impact the walking behaviour of youth. Findings indicate that youth preference for design features is linked to walking motivation and preferred walking context.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Larry Gorenflo, Professor of Landscape Architecture, and Brian Orland, Professor of Landscape Architecture, at The Pennsylvania State University for their contribution to this research project.

Notes

^1. The following instruments were reviewed: (1) Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environment Scan Instrument (SPACES) (Pikora et al. 2002); (2) Pedestrian Environment Data Scan Tool (PEDS) (K. L.Clifton, Livi Smith, and Rodriguez 2007); (3) Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS) (Brownson et al. 2004); (4) Irvine-Minnesota Inventory (IMI) (Day et al. 2006); (5) Physical Activity Resource Assessment Instrument (PARA) (Lee et al. 2005); (6) Twin Cities Walking Survey (Forsyth, Oakes, and Schmitz 2009); (7) Analytic Audit Tool and Checklist Audit Tool (Brownson et al. 2004); and (8) Measurement Instrument for Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability (Ewing, Brownson, and Berrigan 2006). To view these instruments, refer to the Active Living Research website found at: http://www.activelivingresearch.org/resourcesearch/ toolsandmeasures.

^2. It is part of a larger research project to develop an instrument to assess design features linked with active living behaviour of youth in rural areas.

^3. Among the six experts who did not return comments, two responded that they would return comments but did not follow-through, one responded that she did not have the time to respond, and three did not respond at all.

^4. There is much debate regarding a definition for rural; however, the Census 2000 defines a rural county as having less than 50,000 people in any built up area. See: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html; https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/geography/urban_and_rural_areas.html

^5. The Main Street programme in Pennsylvania is a state funded programme to grant funds to municipalities to make improvements to business districts, including streetscape upgrades and other rehabilitation projects. See: www.newpa.com

^6. The term ‘significance’ is used to indicate that results showed significance at the p < 0.05 level; however, the small number of responses (n = 16) means that the significance levels are not definitive, but point to possible relationships.