Are all walking audits equivalent? A comparison of three walking audits in a Montreal neighbourhood

Are all walking audits equivalent? A comparison of three walking audits in a Montreal neighbourhood Anne Pelletier 1, Sophie Paquin 1,2,3, Amélie Chartrand 1,2 1) Direction de santé publique de l Agence de la santé et des service sociaux de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada 2) Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada 3) Centre Léa-Roback, Montréa, Québec, Canada Contact author : Anne Pelletier Direction de santé publique de l Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal 1301 Sherbrooke Est Montréal, Qc H2L 1M3 (514)-528-2400 p 3605 apelleti@santepub-mtl.qc.ca Abstract : Over the past years, built environment and its impact on populations health has been widely studied. City space organization has shown to significantly contribute to obesity and inactivity (Frank 2004, Lake 2006, Heinrich 2008, French 2001). In the province of Quebec, only 37% of people meet minimum physical activity recommendations (Nolin and al. 2005) and less than 10% use active transportation (Health Canada 2005). This is comparable with Canadian and American statistics (Health Canada 2005, Pucher et Dijkstra, 2003). The current urban planning and design of cities makes walking difficult (Ewing et al. 2003). It is common to see wide intersections, no sidewalk continuity and a lack of essential services close to residential sectors. Walkability audit is a type of index developed to verify the presence or the absence of several factors. Some walkability audits focus on aspects linked to pedestrian security (PEDS 2004), others look at land use (Saint-Louis checklist 2003) Most of these tools come from the United States or Australia, and no walking audit experiments have been conducted in Montreal. A project lead by Gauvin and al. identified a series of indicators linked to conviviality (Gauvin et al. 2008). The following project is part of an exploratory research process focusing on the use of walkability audits tool in Montreal. The objective is to fill certain gaps in the literature, find an evaluation method of neighbourhood walkability potential and help local population to evaluate the walking potential of their neighbourhood. Article walk 21 2009-11-07 1

This research compares results of three audits, in one neighbourhood. Two of the three audits used have been validated in the literature (PEDS 2004 and St-Louis Checklist 2003), while the third one is a community tool (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center) to which we added aspects that were not included in the index. The methods used included a literature review of walkability, leading to the selection of three grids for which we did an evaluation. Than questionnaires were sent to key people and questions were asked to people who were walking in the three chosen neighbourhoods. A meeting was then organized with key people and citizens of each neighbourhood to ask them their point of view of the results. The purpose of comparing the result obtained in each index is to indicate if there is an audit that allows a reliable diagnostic which would reveal modifications to make to the built environment. All chosen audits used segments as a measure of units which represents a problem when it comes to evaluating intersections. It does not allow for a systematic evaluation of intersection while it is where most accidents occurs(morency et al 2007). Also, some elements found within Montreal neighbourhoods, are not evaluated with the chosen index. Therefore these tools have some limits. In a second research project, we will attempt to develop a more reliable and easier to use tool. Article walk 21 2009-11-07 2

Biographie Anne Pelletier, M.Sc. Is a health promotion advisor at Montreal s regional health board. She holds a master degree in physical activity science in which she studied the link between regular physical activity practice, environment and fall prevention. Before working for Montreal s health board, Anne worked for the Hearth and Stroke Foundation of Quebec as project manager, mainly to promote better environment for walking. Sophie Paquin, PhD Holds a Ph.D. in urban studies from the University of Quebec at Montreal, Sophie Paquin has leaded several research, training and projects for municipalities and public organizations interested to new approaches in urban planning. At the Department of Public Health of Montreal, she is conducting research and transfer knowledge activities on urban planning and public health for institutional and community leaders. Amélie Chartrand, B.Sc Is a graduate urban planner. Her internship at the Montreal s public health department allowed her to developed an impressive knowledge towards new urbanism approach and the impact of urbanism on health. In 2009 Amélie and her team won the first prize at a charette dedicated to propose new design for the Turcot interchange. Article walk 21 2009-11-07 3

Are all walking audits equivalent? A comparison of three walking audits in a Montreal neighbourhood Pelletier Anne 1, Paquin Sophie 1,2,3, Chartrand Amélie 1,2 1) Direction de santé publique de l Agence de la santé et des service sociaux de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada 2) Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada 3) Centre Léa-Roback, Montréa, Québec, Canada Context Over the past few years, built environment and its impact on population health has been widely studied. Actual city land use contributes significantly to the amount of time an average person spends in a car and indirectly leads to increased probability of developing weight problems due to inactivity (Frank 2004, Lake 2006, Heinrich 2008, French 2001). For example, every hour spent in a car increases by 6% the likelihood of a person developing a weight problem. (Frank 2004) while taking public transport reduces the odds of developing obesity by up to 23% (Lindstrom 2007). Furthermore, in the province of Quebec, only 37% of people meet minimum physical activity recommendations (Nolin and al. 2005) and less than 10% use a mode of active transportation (walking or cycling) on a regular basis (Statistics Canada 2008,). The numbers found for the province of Quebec are similar to what is found in Canada and United States (Statistics Canada 2008, Pucher et Dijkstra, 2003). This is partly explained by the obstacles for pedestrians and cyclists that are commonly found in the urban planning design (Ewing and al. 2003). The lack of infrastructure (cycling trail and sidewalks), the width of the streets and the concentration of local stores and services throughout the city are a few of the common obstacles that make walking and cycling more difficult. This situation also results in an increase in car use and exposes pedestrians and cyclists to more potential crashes. As shown in Morency and Cloutier (2005), traffic volume and speed are related to an increase in the risk of accidents for pedestrians as well as an increase in the severity of injuries. Walking in the province of Quebec Researchers also studied walking as a leisure physical activity as well as a mode of transportation. The purpose of these studies was to try to define the main urban characteristics that influence the choice of walking in every day life. In the province of Quebec, six out of ten adults say they walk at least once a week as a mode of transportation (ESCC 2005). Almost all of the walking trips (96%) in the province are two kilometers long or less (Enquête OD 2003). Walking as a mode of transport is often related to increased residential density, but better infrastructure is more related to walking as a leisure activity ( ICRCP 2009). Article walk 21 2009-11-07 4

With that information in mind, it is clear that a lot of the neighbourhoods developed in the past few decades do not encourage walking since they are organized in a land use pattern that segregates residential and commercial use, and provide wide streets. Thus, it makes it hard for most residents to walk to local stores. Walkability characteristics: Now that we know what inhibits people from walking, it is essential to define the degree to which an environment is desirable to walk in. This concept is known as walkability. It is defined by professionals as characteristics of residential and commercial density, mix in the land use, number of destinations within walking distance and, connectivity of the streets and sidewalks (Frank, Engelke et Schmid 2003; Gauvin et al. 2008). Walkability audit A tool that can help define the level of walkability of a neighbourhood is a walkability audit. This is an index developed to verify the presence or the absence of several factors. Some walkability audits focus on aspects linked to pedestrian security (PEDS 2004), others look at land use (Saint-Louis checklist 2003) Most of these tools come from the United States or Australia. Therefore it is relevant to question whether these audits can be use in other cities of occidental countries. Up until now, no walking audit experiments have been conducted in the city of Montreal. A project lead by Gauvin and al. was conducted in Montreal, but it mainly identified a series of indicators linked to conviviality (Gauvin et al. 2008) and looked at an area as wide as a census tract as a study unit. The authors conclude that a greater density and variety of destinations was associated with increased walking for utilitarian purposes (Gauvin et al. 2008). The project The following project is part of an exploratory research process focusing on the use of walkability audits in Montreal. Its objective is to fill certain gaps in the literature; find an evaluation method of neighbourhood walkability potential and help local populations evaluate the walking potential of their neighbourhood. Three neighbourhoods in Montreal were chosen for this study. All selected neighbourhoods were part of a revitalization program that will benefit from the results of this project. The methods used include a literature review of walkability audits, which led to the selection of three audits. The neighbourhoods were evaluated with each audit on the street segment level. In all, 158 segments were evaluated in the neighbourhood of Mercier-Est, city of Montreal. This paper compares results of three audits, one in each of the three neighbourhoods studied. Two of the three audits used have been validated in the literature (PEDS 2004 and St-Louis Checklist 2003), while the third one is a community tool (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center) to which we added aspects that were not included in the original index but found to be important after pre-test. Article walk 21 2009-11-07 5

To complete the information collected from the audit, questionnaires were distributed to key people (city professionals, local advocacy organizations and a health professionals (n= 9/15)) to ask what were their perceptions of the neighbourhood. Also, various questions were asked to people who were walking in the neighbourhood (n =29) such as why were they walking and which improvement in the neighbourhood would most likely encourage them to walk even more. A meeting will be organized with the key people and the citizens of the neighbourhood to ask them their point of view on the results found in the field and to see if the results found and the information collected matches the local residents and stakeholders points of view. All three audits were analyzed individually and then compared to each other. The purpose of comparing the results obtained in each audit was to indicate if there is an index capable of capturing more sensitive information than the others. If so, this tool would be put forward by the organization as the tool to use in the city of Montreal when conducting walkability audits. If not, results would be analyzed further in order to find out what are the most important indicators that should be included in an index. This information will be used to develop an index that would be suited for Montreal and hopefully most other cities with similar neighbourhoods in the province of Quebec. Results Analysis on the neighbourhood showed that results from one audit to another were similar and that some indicators included in the index were not useful in order to evaluate walkability in a Montreal neighbourhood. For example, since most parts of the city were built in the early 20 th century, every street has a sidewalk, although they are not all in good condition. Since more than 100 indicators were examined, only highlights concerning land use and street infrastructure will be presented in this article. Many indicators were similar but not exactly the same for each audit. For ease of comparison, Table 1 includes a general label for the indicator and the exact indicator for each audit. Not every indicator was measured by each audit, sometimes; only two out of three audits are compared. Land use: Table 1 show a summary of the results of the analysis made on the information collected about land use. Article walk 21 2009-11-07 6

Table 1- Comparison of the frequencies concerning land use indicators over tree walkability audit Residential land use Residential land use Commercial use Community and institutionnal use PEDS (label) Frequency % (number/158) Saint-Louis (label) Frequency % (number/158) Community (label) Houses 49% (78) Houses 48% (76) Exclusively residential Row houses or 88% (139) Multiplex 86% (136) multiplex Restaurant/commerce 26% (41) Fast- food 9% (14) One or two commerce Restaurant 4% (6) Three commerce or more Convenience 10% (16) store Supermarket 2% (3) Bank 4% (6) Drugstore 3% (4) Schools 4% (7) One or two (elementary institution and high school) Community center 4% (7) Three or more institution Library 0,6% (1) Park Park 10% (16) One or two parks Recreational use Parking On street parking Recreational use 8% (12) Recreational installation 13% (21) Three parks or more Sports field 4% (7) Off-street parking lot 84% (132) Parking lot 65% (102) spaces or parking garage On street parking 98% (155) On street parking available 97% (153) Frequency % (number/158) 60% (94) 17% (26) 10% (16) 9% (14) 0,6% (1) 9% (14) 0,6% (1) It is easy to see by the results presented in Table 1, that it may be difficult to find equivalent indicators for each category, one audit might be more specific than others on a particular subject. Though it is still possible to make some comparison and have a rough idea of what the neighbourhood looks like. For example, it is easy to see that street parking is accessible since it is everywhere in this neighbourhood. This is revealed by information collected by the PEDS and St-Louis audit. On the other hand, the St-Louis audit tool gave a better idea of the variety of stores there is in the area than the other audit. It allows one to see that in spite of the fact that there are not that many segments where commercial use was found, at least, we can assume that many of the basic necessities can be found in the stores in this area. Article walk 21 2009-11-07 7

Walking infrastructures Table 2 shows a summary of the results found from the analysis of the data on street and sidewalk infrastructure. Table 2- Comparison of frequencies concerning street and sidewalk infrastructure Number of lanes PEDS (label) Number of lanes to cross Frequency % (number) Saint-Louis (label) Frequency % (number) Community (label) Frequency % (number) Number of lane including parking 2 0,6% (1) 2 0.6% (1) 3 20% (31) 3 15% (23) 4 69% (109) 4 75% (118) 6 9% (14) 6 10% (16) Speed limit Posted speed limit General posted speed limit Width of sidewalk Posted speed limit 30 km/h 8% (12) 30 km/h 2% (3) 30 km/h 9% (14) 50 km/h 11% (18) 50 km/h 11% (18) 50 km/h 11% (17) Sidewalk width There is 88% (139) enough space to walk side by side < 4 feet 13% (20) Between 4 and 8 feet 79% (125) > 8 feet 10% (15) Buffer No buffer 84% (131) Buffer 16% (25) Condition of the sidewalk Sidewalk connectivity Path condition/maintenance Poor 20% (31) Fair 35% (56) Good 44% (70) Sidewalk connectivity with other sidewalks 99% (156) Does the segment have a good connectivity? Crosswalk Crosswalk 25% (39) Does the segment have crossing aids (crosswalk, overpass ) Sidewalks are in bad condition 80% (126) Discontinuity in the sidewalk 14% (22) Traffic light Traffic light 16% (25) Presence of traffic light Traffic Speed bumps 1,3% (2) Street design 9% (14) calming characteristics device Median/ traffic island 2,5% (4) Traffic calming device 6% (10) Traffic calming device 37% (58) 0,6 %(1) 15% (24) 2,5% (4) Article walk 21 2009-11-07 8

As shown in Table 2, at least two third of the streets in the neighbourhood have four or more traffic lanes including residential streets. Also, 20% or less of the streets have a posted speed limit. When the limit is indicated, it is 50 km/h 60 % of the time. Having wide streets combined with higher speed limits may encourage speeding. Even more, only 15% of the street corners have a traffic light and less than half have a stop sign. It has also been found that only one quarter of the segment has a crosswalk for pedestrians to cross safely. Traffic calming devices are rare in this neighbourhood, one of them is a median found on four segments of a six lane commercial street. Walking in the neighbourhood In general, it is clear that these results do not reflect a safe neighbourhood to walk in. Even though, it would be interesting to walk around this neighbourhood because of the variety of local facilities. However, walking on streets with few or no safe infrastructures to cross, makes it less comfortable and unsafe. In many cases, people have to walk to the next street corner to be able to cross the street. Major large scale improvements need to be made in this neighbourhood in order to make it safe to walk and audit help identify what are the major changes needed. The limits of the tool Looking at the numbers from the analysis of each audit, indicate some discrepancies in the results. For instance, the number of lanes per street or the sidewalk connectivity show different results from one audit to an other. Many factors can explain the difference between the results. The most obvious is the possibility of error made by the evaluator (who was previously trained for the task). Having a portion of the segment evaluated by a second evaluator would probably reduce the difference between the data found in each audit. Another important factor comes from the audit itself. Each of them presented the indicators with different labels and different precision levels. For example, the PEDS names all of the different traffic calming devices, while St-Louis asked for street design or traffic calming devices and the Community audit asked for traffic calming device globally. The level of precision in the indicators seemed to help the evaluator focus on which feature to look for. All traffic calming devices identified by the PEDS helped the evaluator to find these devices. The St-Louis was a bit confusing because it includes traffic lights and crosswalks in the devices that slow traffic. Conclusion The purpose of this study was two fold: to draw a picture of a neighbourhood based on three different audits, and to evaluate the audits in order to see if one of the already existing tools could be used for a walkability audit in Montreal. The results showed that even with a basic analysis such as frequencies, it is possible to have a rough picture of a neighbourhood s walkability potential and some of the main problems found in the area. Article walk 21 2009-11-07 9

It also showed that it was necessary to have the results of the three audits together to be able to have a good picture, since none of them were accurate enough. Each audit has its limits. One of these limits is shared by all three indexes: They generally focus on one aspect of walkability and ask general questions on the other aspects. This idea calls to question: how do we build an audit that details indicators in a specific way, includes all aspects of walkability and is practical enough to be used by a community organization? More research is needed, but more importantly a stronger link between research and field work needs to be developed in order to answer this question. References: 1) Canadien Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute, Making the Case for Active Transportation, 2009 2) Clifton K, Pedestrian Environment Data Scan, 2003 University of Maryland 3) Ewing R, Pendall R., Chen D, Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact, Washington (D.C) (2002)Smarth Growth America, 2002, www.smartgrowthamerica.org/sprawlindex.html 4) Frank L.D, Engelke P, Schmid T.L, How Land Use and Transportation System Impact Public Health, A Litterature Review of the Relationship Between Physical Activity and Built Form, Active Community Environments Initiative Working Paper #1, (2003), 147 p. 5) Frank L.D, Andresen M.A, Schmid T.A, Obesity Relationship with Community Design, Physical Activity and Time Spent in a Car, American Journal of Preventive Medicine (2004), 27(2), 87-96 6) French S.A, Story M, Jeffery R.W, Environmental influences on eating and physical activity, (2001), 22, 309-335 7) Gauvin L, Riva M, Barnet T, Richard L, Craig C.L, Spivock M, Laforest S, Laberge S, Fournel M-C, Gagnon H, Gagné S, Association between Neighborhood Active Living Potential and Walking, American Journal of Epidemiology, (2008), 167(8), 944-953 8) Heinrich K.M, Lee R.E, Regan G.R, Reese-Smith J. Y, Howard H.H, Haddock C.K, Poston W.S, Ahluwalia J.S, How does the built environment relate to body mass index and obesity prevalence among public housing residents, American Journal of Health Promotion, (2008), 22 (3) 187-194 9) Lake A. Townsend T, Obesogenic environments: exploring the built and food environments, Journal of Royal Society of Health, (2006), 126 (6), 262-267 10) Lindstrom, M. (2007). Means of transportation to work and overweight and obesity: A population-based study in southern Sweden, Preventive Medecine. 11) Nolin B, Hamel D, Les Québécois bougent plus mais pas encore assez dans Venne M, et Robitaille A, l Annuaire du Québec 2006, Montréal, Fides, 2005, 296-311 12) Pucher, J. and Renne, J., Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transportation Quarterly, (2003) Vol. 57, No. 3, Summer 2003 (49 77). 13) Saint Louis School of public Health, St-Louis Audit tool checklist version, 2004 14) Secrétariat aux enquêtes origine destination, enquête origine destination 2003, la mobilité des personnes dans la région de Montréal, Failts saillants, 27 p 15) Statistique Canada, Habitudes de navettage et lieux de travail des Canadiens,Recensement de 2006, (2008), 43 p 16) Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey, cycle 1.1 17) Walk San Diego, Walkability Checklist, http://www.walksandiego.org/, 4p Article walk 21 2009-11-07 10