Transportation

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 1171–1185 | Cite as

The role of the built environment on perceived safety from crime and walking: examining direct and indirect impacts

Article

Abstract

This study examines the connection between the built environment, perceived safety from crime and walking behaviour by conducting a travel survey in King County, Washington State, U.S. and employing a two-stage least squares model. We seek to answer two research questions: how does the built environment affect perceived safety from crime and walking behaviour; and how does one’s perception of safety from crime affect his/her walking behaviour. Our results show that the built environment is not only significantly related to walking behaviour, as previous research has identified, but also correlated with people’s perception of safety. In addition, a significant association between perceived safety from crime and walking behaviour is found, revealing possible indirect impacts of the built environment on walking. In specific, people living in neighborhoods with good accessibility and pedestrian facilities tend to perceive their neighborhoods safer while density has an opposite impact. Moreover, residents in safe and high-density areas are more likely to walk.

Keywords

Built environment Perceived safety Walking Two-stage least squares 

References

  1. Active Living Research: Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients for Individual Items of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale. http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/NEWS_Item_Reliability_0.pdf(2003). Accessed 21 Mar 2013
  2. Brownson, R.C., Chang, J.J., Eyler, A.A., Ainsworth, B.E., Kirtland, K.A., Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F.: Measuring the environment for friendliness toward physical activity: a comparison of the reliability of 3 questionnaires. Am. J. Public Health 94(3), 473–483 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cao, X.: Exploring causal effects of neighborhood type on walking behavior using stratification on the propensity score. Environ. Plan. A 42, 487–504 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao, X., Handy, S., Mokhtarian, P.: The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation 33, 1–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CDC: Prevalence of physical activity, including lifestyle activities among adults—United States, 2000–2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 52. CDC, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  6. Cervero, R.: Mixed land-uses and commuting: evidence from the American housing survey. Transp. Res. A 30, 361–377 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. Cervero, R., Kockelman, K.M.: Travel demand and the three Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. D 2(3), 199–219 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, C., Gong, H., Paaswell, R.: Role of the built environment on mode choice decisions: additional evidence on the impact of density. Transportation 35(3), 285–299 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ewing, R., Cervero, R.: Travel and the built environment. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76(3), 265–294 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forsyth, A., Krizek, K.J., Agrawal, A., Stonebraker, E.: Reliability testing of the pedestrian and bicycling survey (PABS) method. J. Phys. Act. Health 9(5), 677–688 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. Foster, C., Hillsdon, M., Thorogood, M.: Environmental perceptions and walking in English adults. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 58, 924–928 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B.: The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical acitivity: an exploration of inconsistent findings. Prev. Med. 47, 241–251 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frank, L.D., Pivo, G.: Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Tranp. Res. Rec. 1466, 249–272 (1994)Google Scholar
  14. Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., Powell, K.E., Chapman, J.E.: Stepping towards causation: do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity? Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 1898–1914 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gelman, A., Hill, J.: Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  16. Glaeser, E.: Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention make us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. Penguin Books, Boston (2011)Google Scholar
  17. Handy, S.: Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 72, 55–74 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heath, G.W., Brownson, R.C., Kruger, J., Miles, R., Powell, K.E., Ramsey, L.T., Task Force on Community Preventive Services: The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review. J. Phys. Act. Health 3, 55–76 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. Herbert, D., Davidson, N.: Modyfying the built environment: the impact of improved street lighting. Geoforum 25, 339–350 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joh, K., Nguyen, M.T., Boarnet, M.G.: Can built and social environmental factors encourage walking among individuals with negative walking attitude? J. Plan. Educ. Res. 32, 219–236 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P.L., Laidet, L.: A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24(2), 125–158 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leslie, E., Saelens, B.E., Frank, L.D., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Coffee, N., Hugo, G.: Residents’ perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighborhoods: a pilot study. Health Place 11, 227–236 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loukaitou-Sideris, A.: Is it safe to walk? Neighborhood safety and security considerations and their effects on walking. J. Plan. Lit. 20, 219–232 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manaugh, K., EI-Geneidy, A.M.: Does distance matter? Exploring the links among values, motivations, home location, and satisfaction in walking trips. Transp. Res. A 50, 198–208 (2013)Google Scholar
  25. Manaugh, K., El-Geneidy, A.M.: Validating walkability indices: how do different households respond to the walkability of their neighborhood? Transp. Res. D 16, 309–315 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mason, P., Kearns, A., Livingston, M.: “Safe Going”: the influence of crime rates and perceived crime and safety on walking in deprived neighbourhoods. Soc. Sci. Med. 91, 15–24 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKenzie, B.: Modes less traveled-bicycling and walking to work in the United States: 2008–2012. U.S. Census Bureau, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  28. Nair, G., Ditton, J., Phillips, S.: Environmental improvements and the fear of crime. Br. J. Criminol. 33, 555–561 (1993)Google Scholar
  29. Owen, N., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., duToit, L., Coffee, N., Frank, L.D., Bauman, A.E., Hugo, G., Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F.: Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 33, 387–395 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., Donovan, R.: Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc. Sci. Med. 56, 1693–1703 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saelens, B.E., Handy, S.: Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 40, 550–566 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D.: Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the trasnportation, urban design and planning literatures. Ann. Behav. Med. 25, 80–91 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, T., Chen, C.: Attitudes, mode switching behavior, and the built environment: a longitudinal study in the Puget Sound region. Transp. Res. A 46, 1594–1607 (2012)Google Scholar
  34. Wood, L., Shannon, T., Bulsara, M., Pikora, T., McCormack, G., Giles-Corti, B.: The anatomy of the safe and social suburb: an exploratory study of the built environment, social capital and residents’ perceptions of safety. Health Place 14, 15–31 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban StudiesThe University of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations