ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / November 2005

10.1177/0013916504274016
Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS

TO WALK OR NOT TO WALK?

The Hierarchy of Walking Needs

MARIELA A. ALFONZO, MURP, is a doctoral student in the Department of Plan-

ning, Policy, and Design at the University of California, Irvine. She is interested in the
effects of the physical environment on quality of life. Her major research interests in-
clude community revitalization and the relationship between urban design, walk-
ability, and sense of place and community.

ABSTRACT: The multitude of quality of life problems associated with declining

walking rates has impelled researchers from various disciplines to identify factors
related to this behavior change. Currently, this body of research is in need of a trans-
disciplinary, multilevel theoretical model that can help explain how individual, group,
regional, and physical-environmental factors all affect physical activity behaviors. To
address this gap, this article offers a social-ecological model of walking that presents
a dynamic, causal model of the decision-making process. Within the model, a hierar-
chy of walking needs operates and organizes five levels of needs hierarchically and
presents them as antecedents within the walking decision-making process. This
model can (a) serve as a framework by which to understand the relative significance of
the cornucopia of variables identified by existing research, (b) offer hypotheses for
how these factors affect peoples’ decision to walk, and (c) help to guide future
research and practice.
Keywords: urban form; walking; environment-behavior theory

In the past 20 years, walking in the United States has been decreasing
steadily, both as a means of transportation and as a form of recreation.
According to the nationwide personal transportation survey (Federal High-
way Administration, 1995), in 1977, walking trips made up 9.3% of the aver-
age annual person trips per household, whereas in 1995, walking trips
accounted for only 5.3% of trips (Federal Highway Administration, 1995).

AUTHOR’S NOTE: I would like to thank both Dr. Kristen Day and Dr. Daniel Stokols
for their invaluable help, support, and input on this article. It is gratefully acknowledged.
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 37 No. 6, November 2005 808-836
DOI: 10.1177/0013916504274016
© 2005 Sage Publications

808
 Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS 809

Concurrently, there has been a considerable increase in sedentary lifestyles

and, as such, higher rates of obesity among U.S. residents (Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention, 1999). The dramatic decrease in walking has
alarmed many health professionals, as multiple studies have linked low phys-
ical activity levels to an increased risk of heart disease, strokes, and other
health problems (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999; Pedes-
trian and Bicycle Information Center, 2000). The drop in walking rates has
also troubled social scientists, architects, and planners, as many believe that
this decrease may affect quality of life and sense of community.
Researchers within the fields of public health, community medicine,
transportation, and urban planning have conducted studies aimed at identify-
ing the factors that affect a person’s physical activity levels. Researchers have
generally adopted a disciplinary approach to examining these issues; how-
ever, as health researchers have primarily aimed to identify individual-level
characteristics that affect a person’s physical activity levels, planning research-
ers have focused on identifying physical-environmental variables related to
walking (see Table 1).
Although some health researchers have recently begun to study the role of
the environment in affecting physical activity (in addition to individual-level
factors), most have focused on access to exercise or recreational facilities
rather than specific aspects of built form, urban design, or land uses. Simi-
larly, when planners have looked beyond the physical environment and have
investigated individual-level factors, they have generally looked at demo-
graphics and have treated such variables as controls rather than as predictor
variables or moderators. Additionally, studies investigating the relationship
between the built environment and physical activity have usually examined
the effects of only one or two characteristics of the physical environment,
without a broader elaboration of the multiple and complex ways in which the
built environment may influence walking for diverse populations and set-
tings. Finally, outcome variables have ranged from general physical activity,
moderate physical activity, vigorous physical activity, exercise, walking, and
modal choice, making it difficult to compare research results and build on
previous findings.
Adopting a narrow approach to a multilevel problem such as the decrease
in walking has led to a piecemeal understanding of the factors affecting walk-
ing. Researchers have identified many variables that affect walking but few
have tested (or offered) hypotheses for how these variables may interact in
affecting a person’s decision to walk. 1 The few studies that have tested
interactions between various types of factors have generally not relied
on a conceptual or theoretical model and, as such, have not classified vari-
ables as moderators or mediators. Thus, the interactions identified represent
(text continues on p. 817)
810
TABLE 1
Studies Aimed at Identifying Factors Related to Physical Activity

Individual- Group- Regional- Physical-

Dependent Level Level Level Environment
Citation Variables Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics

Ball, Bauman, Leslie, Walking (grouped Age, education, sex, Company or walking Aesthetics, safety,
& Owen, 2001* exercise, recre- physical and men- with pet and convenience
ational and desti- tal health status, of facilities
nation walking country of birth
together)
Ball, Crawford, & Physical activity Weight, sex (con-
Owen, 2000* (general) trols), perceptions
of weight
Bauman, Smith, Walking intensity and Dem: age, sex, Coastal location of
Stoker, Bellow, & duration (no dis- employment sta- residence
Booth, 1999* tinction between tus, education,
destination vs. country of birth
strolling) (controls)
Berrigan & Troiano, Walking (no distinc- Limits to physical Regional variation Home age (proxy for
2002* tion between desti- activity, sex, race environmental fea-
nation vs. strolling) or ethnicity, age, tures influencing
education, house- physical activity),
hold income urban or rural
status
 Black, Collins, & Modal choice (walk- Number of cars in Perceived distance to
Snell, 2001** ing vs. driving) household, destination
employment type, (school)
individual respon-
sibility and impact,
environmental
awareness, car-
centeredness
Booth, Bauman, Physical activity Barriers to physical Sources of social
Owen, & Gore, (general) activity, physical support
1997* activity
preferences
Booth, Owen, Vigorous activity, Age, sex, employ- Social support, social Access to exercise or
Bauman, Clavisi, & walking (grouped ment status, mari- reinforcement, recreational facility,
Leslie, 2000* exercise, recre- tal status, living social modeling safety or difficulty
ational, and desti- situation, country of walking in
nation walking of birth, attitudes neighborhood dur-
together), toward physical ing the day
moderate-intensity activity, self-
activity efficacy, ownership
of exercise
equipment
Cervero & Radisch, Modal split (between Age, annual salary, Type of neighbor-
1996** walking, bicycling, number of vehicles hood
driving, carpooling, in household, (neotraditional vs.
and public trans- household size conventional
port) for nonwork suburban)
and commuting
travel (both desti-
nation walking
types)

811
(continued)
 TABLE 1 (continued)

812
Individual- Group- Regional- Physical-
Dependent Level Level Level Environment
Citation Variables Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics

Dieleman, Dijst, & Modal choice Household type, Urbanization level of

Burghouwt, 2002** (between walking, household income, municipality
bicycling, public car ownership,
transport, driving, educational level
and other) for work
trips, shopping
trips, and leisure
trips
Frank & Pivo, 1994** Modal choice Household type, Population density,
(between driving, ownership of a employment den-
transit, and driver’s license, sity, land use mix
walking) employment sta-
tus, ownership of a
bus pass, vehicles
available, number
of vehicles, age
Friedman, Gordon, & Modal choice (be- Neighborhood type
Peers, 1994** tween driving, (traditional vs.
transit, bicycling, suburban)
walking, and other)
for home-based
work, home-based
nonwork, work-
based other and
non-home-based
trips
 Giles-Corti & Use of facilities and Attitude toward trying to Club membership, Functional environ-
Donovan, 2002a* whether partici- exercise, attitude frequency of par- ment, appeal of
pant exercised as toward process of ticipation in physi- environment, over-
recommended trying to exercise, cal activity by five all spatial access
subjective norms, significant others, to built facilities,
frequency of trying to frequency of a sig- overall spatial
exercise in the past 3 nificant other access to natural
months, perceived doing physical facilities
behavioral control, activity with
intention to try to respondent
exercise in the next 2
weeks, behavioral
skills used in the past
3 months
Giles-Corti & Physical activity Age, sex, household Social support for Spatial access to
Donovan, 2002b* behavior (includ- income, education, walking locally, recreational facili-
ing sufficiently number of children in neighborhood ties; neighborhood
active, walking as household, employ- socioeconomic attractiveness,
recommended, ment status, and status safety and interest
walking for trans- access to motor (perceived); traffic
port, walking for vehicle and traffic haz-
recreation, and ards; sidewalks
vigorous activity) available, street
lighting, public
transport or park
or shop within
walking distance
(perceived)

813
(continued)
814
TABLE 1 (continued)

Individual- Group- Regional- Physical-

Dependent Level Level Level Environment
Citation Variables Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics

Handy, 1996a** Walking (both Gender, age, length of Type of neighbor-

destination— time in residence, hood (traditional,
walking to the average number of early modern and
store—and vehicles per house- late modern)
strolling) hold, number of per-
sons in household,
number of children in
household, house-
hold income
Handy, 1996b** Walking (both Age, employment sta- Type of neighbor-
destination—to tus, education, num- hood (traditional
commercial ber of adults in vs. modern)—
areas—and household, number focusing on acces-
strolling) of children in house- sibility to destina-
hold, home owner- tions, accessibility
ship, type of within the neigh-
dwelling, number of borhood and
household vehicles, accessibility to the
length of residence surrounding region
(controls at the
neighborhood level)
 Hess, Vernez- Walking to neighbor- Physical limitations Neighborhood Type of neighbor-
Moudon, Snyder, & hood center (collected observa- income (control) hood (urban ver-
Stanilov, 1999** tionally), sex, age sus suburban)—
(collected observa- focusing on side-
tionally), individual walk system, park-
verses group walk- ing (on-street vs.
ing, presence of off-street) and
children or grocer- block size; gross
ies, presence of population density
dog (collected and land use type
observationally) and mix (controls)
Leslie et al., 1999* Walking for recre- Physical limitations, Social support
ation, walking for age, sex, student
transport, moder- or work status,
ate exercise, vigor- self-efficacy, exer-
ous exercise cise-related enjoy-
ment, awareness
of exercise or rec-
reational facilities
Ross, 2000* Walking, exercise, Age, race, ethnicity, Neighborhood pov- Neighborhood type
smoking sex, marital status, erty level, neigh- (city, suburb, small
education, house- borhood education town, or rural area)
hold income, pov- level, neighbor-
erty, fear (of crime) hood racial and
ethnic composition
Ståhl et al., 2001* Physical activity Social support, social Awareness or access
(general) influence to facilities for
physical activity

815
(continued)
 TABLE 1 (continued)

816
Individual- Group- Regional- Physical-
Dependent Level Level Level Environment
Citation Variables Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics

Vernez-Moudon, Walking to neighbor- Physical limitations Neighborhood Type of neighbor-

Hess, Snyder, & hood center (collected observa- income (control) hood (urban vs.
Stanilov, 1997* tionally), sex, age suburban)—focus-
(collected observa- ing on individual
tionally), individual width and network
vs. group walking, characteristics of
presence of chil- streets, pedestrian
dren or groceries, facilities, complete-
presence of dog, ness and safety of
(collected pedestrian facili-
observationally) ties, and direct-
ness of pedestrian
routes); gross pop-
ulation density and
Land use type and
mix (controls)
*Discipline of public health or community medicine. **Discipline of transportation or urban planning.
 Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS 817

oversimplified relationships between two variables and are not typically use-
ful (in terms of applied utility) as they are not part of a dynamic, theoretical
model informing the walking decision-making process. As these variables
do not exist in a vacuum, it is critical to understand how and when individual,
group, regional, and physical-environmental factors come into play within
the decision-making process, not only to understand their roles theoretically
but also to better translate research results into effective policies, program
interventions, and design guidelines.
This body of research is in need of a transdisciplinary, multilevel, theo-
retical model that can help to explain how individual, group, regional, and
physical-environmental factors affect physical activity behaviors. To address
this gap, this article offers a social-ecological conceptual model for how both
urban and nonurban form factors may interact to affect walking. This model
can (a) serve as a framework by which to understand the relative significance
of the cornucopia of variables identified by existing research, (b) offer
hypotheses for how these factors affect peoples’ decision to walk, and (c)
help to guide future research and practice.
First, the article will provide an overview of a new theory of how to con-
ceptually organize the various urban form (and nonurban form) variables that
may affect walking. This theory will then be placed into a social-ecological
framework that conceptualizes the walking decision-making process as a
dynamic one, with antecedents, mediators, interprocesses (moderators), and
multiple outcomes. Next, there will be a more thorough discussion of the new
theory proposed at the beginning of the article. Afterward, the concept of
choice will be discussed as an important presumption of the model, and the
issue of self-selection will be considered. The article will conclude by high-
lighting the potential applied utility of the social-ecological model proposed.

THE HIERARCHY OF WALKING NEEDS

Many factors are believed to influence a person’s level of physical

activity. Studies have shown that individual, group, regional, and physical-
environmental variables may all affect walking. Currently, however, it is not
clearly understood which of these factors are most salient, nor is it clear how
or whether these factors interact in affecting a person’s level of physical
activity. The conceptual model outlined here (see Figure 1), using a social-
ecological framework, posits that individual, group, regional, and physical-
environmental variables affect an individual’s choice to walk at different
818 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / November 2005

points in his or her decision-making process and that some factors are more
prominent in the decision-making process than others.
Principally within the social-ecological conceptual model being proposed
here, is the argument that there exists a hierarchy of walking needs. As
Maslow (1954) depicted in his influential theory of human motivation, peo-
ple are motivated by a variety of needs. These needs are “organized into a
hierarchy of prepotency” (p. 83). Some needs are more basic and fundamen-
tal than others. An individual must satisfy these more basic needs before he or
she can consider higher-order needs.
The same hierarchical structure can be applied to the needs that people
consider when deciding to walk. The hierarchy of walking needs model pos-
its that there are five levels of needs that are considered within the walking
decision-making process. These needs progress from the most basic need,
feasibility (related to personal limits), to higher-order needs (related to urban
form) that include accessibility, safety, comfort, and pleasurabilty, respec-
tively. Within this hierarchical structure, an individual would not typically
consider a higher-order need in his or her decision to walk if a more basic
need was not already satisfied. Thus, for example, if the need for safety is not
met, a person would not consider his or her need for comfort or pleasurabilty
when deciding whether to walk because the more basic need, safety, is
unmet. In other words, a very comfortable or pleasurable environment would
not necessarily compel a person to walk if his or her need for safety was
lacking.
As in Maslow’s (1954) theory of motivation, several considerations shape
the hierarchy of walking needs. First, not all needs must be fully satisfied to
proceed to the next level of need. A person may only be partially satisfied
with his or her need for accessibility, for example, yet still consider his or her
need for safety when determining whether to walk. Also, the levels within the
hierarchy may not always proceed in the order depicted. Some people may
reverse the order of some of the levels within the hierarchy. For example, peo-
ple who are constantly deprived of a need may forgo that need altogether and
look to a higher need, despite not satisfying the more basic need.2 Addition-
ally, walking may be motivated by several different needs simultaneously.
For example, a person may be motivated to walk both because the walk is
comfortable and because it is pleasurable. Furthermore, the evaluation of
walking needs may or may not be conscious. So, if asked about his or her
decision-making process, a person may or may not be able to articulate these
needs as conscious considerations of his or her choice to walk. Additionally,
as motivation is not the only determinant of behavior, merely being moti-
vated to perform a specific behavior does not necessarily mean that the
behavior will occur.
 Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS 819

Specifically, the satiation of all the needs within the hierarchy of walking
needs does not necessarily imply that the person will walk. Neither must all
the needs within the hierarchy be fulfilled for a person to decide to walk.
Thus, the realization of these five needs is neither necessary nor sufficient to
induce walking. The choice to walk can occur anywhere on the hierarchy.
What the hierarchy does ultimately imply is that the absence of higher-order
needs (and associated amenities, in the case of the built environment) does
not restrict the choice to walk if lower-order needs have not been fulfilled.
This point is key for design guidance and planning decision making, as dis-
cussed later.

THE SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL MODEL

OF WALKING

The hierarchy of walking needs model alone does not explain the entire
walking decision-making process. Rather, the hierarchy must be placed
within the context of a social-ecological framework to fully understand how
people make the decision to walk (see Figure 1). As previously discussed, the
hierarchy of walking needs organizes the various urban form variables iden-
tified to be significant by existing research into a hierarchy of prepotency.
Thus, some urban form variables are more fundamental (or necessary) within
the decision-making process. It also incorporates feasibility, a nonurban
form variable, as the most basic need, for which fulfillment is necessary to
even consider urban form within the decision to walk.
The elements within the hierarchy serve as the antecedents within the
walking decision-making process. These variables are either present or
absent within the setting (or within the person in the case of feasibility) in
which the decision to walk occurs. It is the affordance of these needs, how-
ever, that ultimately may affect the decision to walk. An affordance is the set
of properties that are present within an environment that allow for the occur-
rence of a behavior (Gibson, 1977). For example, if a surface is firm, horizon-
tal, and appropriately sized, that surface affords the support necessary for a
person to stand on it. For a behavior, such as standing, to occur, however, a
person must perceive the affordance that a particular environment or object
provides. An individual’s perceptions, habits, and motivations help to deter-
mine whether he or she will perceive a particular affordance.
As applied to walking behavior, an individual’s perceptions, habits, and
motivations will help to determine whether a particular need in the hierarchy
is met. That is, people may differ with respect to the affordances they per-
820
Affordances –
Perceived
Environmental Factors

Antecedents – Environmental Factors Inter-processes Outcomes

(Moderators)
No Walking
Life-cycle circumstances
Duration
Brief Walk <10min
Individual-level –
Urban Form Biological, Group-level –
Pleasurability Psychological, Sociological,
Longer Walk >10min
Demographics, Cultural, etc.
Comfort etc. P

Safety
Destination Walking
Type
Accessibility Regional-level –
Limits Climate,
Feasibility Topographical,
Strolling Walking
Geographical, etc.

Hierarchy of Walking Needs Combination Walking

Figure 1: Hierarchy of Walking Needs Within a Social-Ecological Framework

 Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS 821

ceive within the environment. Within the same setting, one individual may
perceive the affordances necessary to meet his or her need for safety, whereas
another person may not. Thus, a person’s perception of an affordance for a
particular need may act as a mediator between the hierarchy of needs and the
choice to walk.
Within the social-ecological model of walking, neither the hierarchy of
needs nor a person’s perception with respect to the affordances a particular
setting may present are a direct link to a person’s decision to walk. There are
several interprocesses that act as moderators within the walking decision-
making process. As noted earlier, individuals may differ with respect to how
many levels of needs must be satisfied before they decide to walk. Individual
circumstances and personal characteristics may help to predict a person’s
threshold of need or the point at which an individual has sufficiently satisfied
his or her walking needs. Specifically, to better understand how a person will
relate to the levels of need within the hierarchy, his or her life cycle circum-
stances should be considered.
A person’s life cycle circumstances refers to those factors unique to an
individual that may affect the level within the hierarchy at which he or she is
sufficiently satisfied to decide to walk. Life cycle circumstances include a
person’s individual-level attributes (including biological, psychological,
demographic characteristics, etc.), group-level characteristics (including
sociological and cultural factors, etc.), and the regional-level attributes of his
or her walking setting (including topography, climate, geography, etc.).
Many significant relationships have been identified between the charac-
teristics that make up a person’s life cycle circumstances and physical activ-
ity (see Table 2). Examining these variables separately as independent pre-
dictors or determinants of walking, however, leads to an overly simplistic
model of the factors that affect a person’s decision to walk. Placing these vari-
ables into a social-ecological model and treating them as interprocesses or
moderators in the decision to walk creates a more complete, dynamic frame-
work within which to investigate their effect on physical activity.
Individual-, group-, and regional-level attributes may all moderate the
relationship between the hierarchy of walking needs and a person’s decision
to walk. For example, a psychological variable (an individual-level charac-
teristic), such as a person’s pre-existing attitude toward walking, may help to
determine how many of the levels of need within the hierarchy must be ful-
filled before that person decides to walk. A person who is highly committed
to his or her health and believes that walking is a good source of exercise may
require fulfillment of only the more basic needs within the hierarchy to
decide to walk. A person who is less motivated by health and exercise may
require fulfillment of higher-order needs to be motivated to walk. Similarly,
822
TABLE 2
Examples of Life Cycle Circumstances—Significant Variables

Life Cycle Circumstances Examples of Factors Examples of Significant Variables

Individual-level characteristics Psychological or cognitive factors Subjective norms

Perceived behavioral control
Level of behavioral intention
Habitual behavior
Self-efficacy
Physical activity enjoyment levels
Attitudes
Awareness
Demographic factors Age
Gender
Education
Marital status
Biological factors Weight
Group-level characteristics Sociological factors Levels of social support
Social reinforcement
Social modeling
Membership in sports teams recreational activities,
and outdoor clubs
Cultural factors Informal “culture” of neighborhoods
Regional-level characteristics Climate
Topography
Geography Coastal neighborhoods
 Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS 823

attitudes toward driving or attachment to a car as the primary means of trans-

portation may affect the number of levels that must be met for a person to
decide to walk. A person’s psychological health, expectations, motivations,
and other psychological, cognitive, or emotional-level attributes may all
affect the point on the hierarchy at which a person decides to walk.
Demographic variables may also moderate the relationship between the
hierarchy and a person’s decision to walk. For example, older people have
been found to walk significantly less as compared to younger people
(Berrigan & Troiano, 2002; Frank & Pivo, 1994; Ross, 2000). This discrep-
ancy may be explained by a fundamental difference in the way that older peo-
ple relate to the hierarchy. Perhaps older people walk less because of physical
mobility limitations or other health problems making walking less feasible.
A person’s age, then, may affect the saliency of certain needs, such as feasi-
bility, in the decision to walk. Consequently, even if a setting affords the
factors necessary to satisfy higher-order needs such as comfort and pleasur-
ability, an older person may still decide not to walk because his or her basic
needs are not sufficiently satisfied.
A person’s culture, a group-level characteristic, may also affect how an
individual makes decisions regarding walking. For example, a culture’s be-
lief system or set of norms toward walking and exercise may affect the num-
ber of needs a person must satisfy before he or she decides to walk. Members
of cultures that stress the importance of walking may require fewer needs
than would members of cultures that are more apathetic toward walking or
exercise. Additionally, sociological variables, such as societal norms, group
associations, and levels of social support may all moderate the number of lev-
els of needs that must be satisfied before an individual decides to walk.
Regional-level attributes may also act as moderators. Certain regions may
inherently possess conditions that increase an individual’s baseline for walk-
ing. For example, residents of coastal regions or temperate climates may
already be more motivated to walk as compared to residents of noncoastal
regions or frigid climates. Thus, the regional qualities of an individual’s
neighborhood may moderate his or her choice to walk.
In addition to placing urban and nonurban form variables within a social-
ecological framework and identifying possible mediators and moderators,
various types of outcomes are delineated by the model. Besides the dichoto-
mous choice of whether to walk, the hierarchy of walking needs, as a part of
the social-ecological model, also influences both the duration of the walk and
type of walking chosen. For example, more needs may be required for a lon-
ger walk as opposed to a brief walk. Furthermore, certain levels of need may
be more salient (or necessary) depending on the type3,4 of walk or purpose for
the walk (a distinction noted throughout the body of the article). This distinc-
824 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / November 2005

tion is particularly important for future empirical research investigating the

relationship between the physical environment and walking, as different ele-
ments of urban form (as well as different levels of needs within the hierarchy)
may only be significant for a particular type of walk.
The social-ecological model of walking presents a dynamic, casual model
of the decision-making process. Within the model, the hierarchy of walking
needs operationalizes and organizes five levels of needs hierarchically
(see Figure 2) and presents them as antecedents within the walking decision-
making process. The model recognizes the affordances of these five levels of
needs (or their perception) as the mediator between the antecedents and the
outcome. The model also establishes a person’s life cycle circumstances as
moderators between the levels of needs and the outcome variables. The fol-
lowing section will provide a detailed description of each of the five levels of
needs within the hierarchy. This section is meant to provide evidence of the
significance of each of these levels with respect to their effect on walking
(and thus justify their inclusion in the model) rather than serve as a formal lit-
erature review.5

THE FIVE LEVELS OF WALKING NEEDS

FEASIBILITY

Feasibility is proposed as the most basic level of need within the hierarchy
of walking needs. Feasibility refers to the practicality or viability of a walk-
ing trip—in other words, is a walking trip feasible? The need for feasibility
may influence the decision-making process for both destination and strolling
walking trips. For destination trips, feasibility factors may affect the choice
between walking and other forms of transportation. For strolling trips, how-
ever, feasibility factors may affect the choice between taking a walk or not.
For both types of walking trips, it is assumed that if the need for feasibility is
not met, then walking will not typically occur, regardless of how satisfied a
person is with the other levels of the hierarchy.
Factors related to the need for feasibility include considerations of mo-
bility, time, or other responsibilities. Mobility factors may be affected by a
person’s age, weight, or physical condition. Limited mobility may make a
walking trip unfeasible. Similarly, limited time may limit feasibility and may
ultimately affect a person’s decision to walk. Responsibility for children,
elderly, or other commitments may also reduce feasibility.
 Includes factors such as
• Diversity and complexity
• Liveliness (activity level)
• Architectural coherence and scale
• Aesthetic appeal
May be operationalized as
• Presence of a varied streetscape, mixed uses,
architectural elements, historic or unique
architecture, color, etc.
• Presence of public space
• Presence of other people, street vendors, outdoor
dining areas, etc.

Includes factors such as Includes factors such as

• Urban design characteristics that affect the • Urban design characteristics related to
relationship between pedestrians and motorized physical incivilities and fear of crime
traffic • Types of land uses
• Urban design characteristics related to the • People present
pedestrian walkway system and street network May be operationalized as
• Urban design amenities • Presence of graffiti, litter, abandoned
May be operationalized as Pleasurability buildings, 1st-floor windows, etc.
• Presence of traffic calming features (e.g., • Presence of bars, liquor stores,
roundabouts, medians, curb bulb-outs, etc. ) pawnshops, etc.
• Width of the street, length of blocks, width of Comfort • Presence of threatening or loitering
sidewalk, presence of sidewalk buffers, street individuals, etc.
trees, etc.
• Street furniture, arcades, canopies, water Safety
fountains, etc.
Accessibility

Includes factors such as Feasibility Includes factors such as

• The pattern, quantity, quality, variety • Mobility
and proximity of activities present • Time
• Connectivity between uses • Responsibilities
• Walking-related infrastructure May be operationalized as
May be operationalized as • Number of adults in household
• Presence/completeness of sidewalk • Number of children in household
network • Childcare responsibility, etc.
• Presence/number of barriers • Age, health or physical mobility
• Distance to destinations
• Number of destinations, etc.

825
Figure 2: Hierarchy of Walking Needs
826 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / November 2005

Several factors related to feasibility affect the choice between walking and
driving. For example, the presence of children in the household and the
parental working status of a household affect that household’s mode of travel
(Dieleman, Dijst, & Burghouwt, 2002). These factors may correspond with
an individual’s level of responsibility or with the amount of time a person has
to walk, which may in turn affect the feasibility for walking for an individual.
Time limitations have also been linked to walking levels (Booth, Owen,
Bauman, Clavisi, & Leslie, 1997). Time, as well as motivation and child
care responsibilities, act as a barrier to physical activity for younger people
(Booth et al., 1997).
Although it is assumed that mobility issues affect whether a person de-
cides to walk, only one study has investigated this relationship directly. Both
a person’s weight and a person’s perception of his or her own weight have
been found to be a significant barrier to physical activity (Ball, Crawford, &
Owen, 2000). Ultimately, it may be that those who have mobility limita-
tions—temporary or permanent—do not really have the choice to walk.
More studies examining the effect of mobility on the need for feasibility and
ultimately on the decision to walk would be beneficial. Also needed is
research on the link between the issue of feasibility and strolling.

ACCESSIBILITY

If a person perceives that his or her feasibility needs have been sufficiently
met, he or she may consider the next level of need for a walking trip to
occur—accessibility. Accessibility encompasses the pattern, quantity, qual-
ity, variety and proximity of activities present, as well as the connectivity
between the uses (Handy, 1996b). Accessibility incorporates many more ele-
ments than just a simple ratio of retail to residential to office uses (Handy,
1996b).
Accessibility factors may include the presence of sidewalks, paths, trails,
or features that provide perceived paths on which to walk. Accessibility may
also involve actual or perceived barriers to walking, including physical barri-
ers such as an impenetrable land use (a gated community through which one
cannot pass), natural feature (a ravine), or a psychological barrier to access
(such as a particularly wide road). Accessibility may also include the number
of destinations available within a reasonable walking distance as well as the
integration of various land uses within a specified area. Specifically, for des-
tination walking, the perception of distance to a particular destination may
affect the person’s level of satisfaction with accessibility; however, distance
is not believed to affect the decision-making process for strolling trips as
strongly, as strolling trips are not necessarily tied to specific destinations.
 Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS 827

Factors related to accessibility have been found to affect walking behav-

ior. For example, neighborhood proximity to commercial areas and the pres-
ence of links between residential and commercial areas are associated with
the frequency of nonwork destination trips. Differences in neighborhood
accessibility were not associated with the frequency of strolling trips, how-
ever (Handy, 1996b). Distances to destinations also affect the choice to walk
(Black, Collins, & Snell, 2001; Southworth, 1997). For example, although
70% of people will walk 500ft for errands, only 40% will walk 1/5 mile and
only 10% of people will walk half a mile (Southworth, 1997).
More research is needed to further understand the effect of accessibility
on walking. Most studies that have looked at the relationship between acces-
sibility and walking have used a composite analysis, where different types of
neighborhoods are compared to one another with respect to residents’ walk-
ing behavior. Although helpful for understanding the overall effects of differ-
ent neighborhood types, this approach does not identify the specific factors
or elements within these neighborhoods that encourage walking.

SAFETY

If both feasibility and accessibility needs are met, then the person can
begin to consider the next need—safety. Safety refers to whether a person
feels safe from the threat of crime.6 A person’s level of safety may be affected
by urban form, particular land uses, and the presence of certain groups or
individuals. The need for safety may particularly affect strolling walking, as
this trip is considered to be optional. As such, if a person is not satisfied with
his or her need for safety, he or she may forgo the stroll.
Urban form features that may contribute to feelings of safety include graf-
fiti, litter, abandoned or run down buildings, and the presence of first-floor
windows that are visible from the street. Bars, liquor stores, pawnshops, or
other types of land uses may affect the level of safety felt by some pedes-
trians. Other less tangible features such as the presence or absence of threat-
ening groups may also contribute to a person’s level of safety within his or her
neighborhood.
Many environmental attributes have been associated with fear of crime.
Physical incivilities, such as the presence of graffiti, litter, vandalism, and
poorly maintained housing, have been linked to heightened levels of fear of
crime (Hope & Hough, 1988; Maxfield, 1987; Perkins, Meeks, & Taylor,
1992; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981). Elements related to Oscar Newman’s
(1972) defensible space theory,7 such as personalization of property (Per-
kins, 1986) and lack of territorial control (Taylor, Gottfredson, & Brower,
1984) have also been linked to fear of crime. The number of street lights, the
828 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / November 2005

presence of yard decorations, block watch signs, and private plantings8 have
all been negatively related to fear of crime (Perkins et al., 1992), indicating
that defensible space and territorial features can decrease residents’ fear of
crime. Furthermore, territoriality features such as signs of residential outdoor
activity have been negatively associated with burglary reports (Brown &
Altman, 1983).
Other physical design features have been linked to residents’ sense of
safety. For example, Kuo, Bacaicoa, and Sullivan (1998) found that tree
planting and grass maintenance affected inner-city residents’ sense of safety.
Also, blocked views have been found to increase fear of crime (Kuo et al.,
1998), and view distances were associated with residents’ sense of safety
(Fischer & Nasar, 1992; Michael & Hull, 1994). Additionally, narrow streets
and the presence of other nonresidential property and stores on the block9
were found to be negatively associated to perceived crime levels (Perkins,
Wandersman, Rich, & Taylor, 1993). Furthermore, dilapidated housing has
been linked to higher levels of perceived delinquency (Perkins et al., 1993).
Finally, the presence of certain threatening groups has also been found to
affect a person’s sense of safety. For example, the presence of young males
hanging out has been linked to higher levels of perceived crime (Day, 1999;
Perkins et al., 1992).
Although the environmental attributes linked to fear of crime have been
investigated extensively, the effect this fear has on behavior is less well
understood. Recently, Ross (2000) examined the effect of fear on the likeli-
hood of walking for exercise. People who felt more afraid in their neighbor-
hoods were significantly less likely to walk than those who felt less afraid.
This result was consistent across different types of neighborhoods. This
study begins to show how the unmet need for safety may affect decisions to
walk. Future research might examine links between perceived safety, built
environment features, and walking for strolling versus transportation.

COMFORT

Once feasibility, accessibility, and safety needs have been met, a person
may consider the next level of need—comfort. Comfort refers to a person’s
level of ease, convenience, and contentment. A person’s satisfaction with
comfort for walking may be affected by environmental qualities that either
facilitate walking or remove factors that might make the walk distressing.
Overall, the qualities that may affect comfort levels include urban form fea-
tures that affect the relationship between the pedestrian and motorized traffic
(e.g., traffic calming elements, speed limits, the width and length of streets,
 Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS 829

and the presence of buffers), the condition of the pedestrian walkway system
(e.g., sidewalk widths and sidewalk maintenance), urban design elements
intended to offer protection from unfavorable or extreme weather conditions
(e.g., canopies and arcades), and features that provide amenities throughout a
setting (e.g., street benches, drinking fountains, and other street furniture).
Researchers have examined several features linked to comfort. For exam-
ple, traffic-calming strategies have been found to affect pedestrian volumes
(Frank, Engelke, Schmid, & Killingsworth, n.d.). Clark and Dornfeld (1994)
found that a variety of traffic-calming tactics—including reduced street
widths and speed limits and the introduction of speed humps, street cross-
ings, and plantings—were associated with increased street activity, walking,
and bicycling. In addition, traffic volumes have been associated with resi-
dents’ level of neighboring and satisfaction with their neighborhood
(Appleyard, 1981), which may in turn affect pedestrian behaviors.
Sidewalk comfort has also been linked to higher walking rates. In a study
of the perceived environmental attributes associated with physical activity,
older adults who reported that the sidewalks in their neighborhoods pre-
sented fewer obstacles to a safe and comfortable walk were more likely to be
more active than were those who reported that the sidewalks presented more
obstacles (Booth, Owen, Bauman, Clavisi, & Leslie, 2000).
Although there has been much theorizing about the importance of comfort
features within pedestrian-oriented environments (Hall & Porterfield, 2001;
Untermann, 1984), limited empirical research has been conducted on how
these features may affect either overall walking levels or an individual’s deci-
sion to walk. Existing studies have focused primarily on features that buffer
pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic (Frank et al., n.d.). Research is needed
on the actual effects of microscale comfort elements, such as urban design
amenities (street furniture, drinking fountains, etc.) and weather buffers
(arcades, canopies, etc.).

PLEASURABILITY

If the first four levels of the hierarchy are met, a person may consider an
area’s pleasurability features in his or her decision to walk. Pleasurability
refers to the level of appeal that a setting provides with respect to a person’s
walking experience. Pleasurability is also related to how enjoyable and inter-
esting an area is for walking.
Diversity, complexity, liveliness, architectural coherence and scale, and
aesthetic appeal may all affect a person’s level of satisfaction with pleasur-
ability. Streetscapes, urban design features, architectural elements, and the
830 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / November 2005

activity level of a setting may enhance these qualities. Specifically, some fac-
tors that may make for a pleasurable environment include street trees, mixed
uses, public spaces, other people, attractive or interesting architecture, his-
toric or unique buildings, color, and outdoor dining areas, among others.
Existing research does not directly link pleasurability factors to walking.
Research on preference does show, however, that people prefer settings that
contain certain pleasurable environmental qualities. For example, the pres-
ence of diversity or complexity within an environment has been linked to
preference, as has coherence, structural organization, and nuisances (Herzog,
1992; Kaplan, 1972; Nasar, 1983). Mystery in the environment has also been
linked positively to preference (Herzog & Smith, 1988). Streets with trees
were found to be preferred to streets without trees within a residential setting,
whereas streets with overhead wires were less preferred (Stamps, 1997).
Some studies have specifically tied qualities related to pleasurability to
walking behavior. For example, the perception of environmental aesthetics
has been linked to higher walking rates (Ball, Bauman, Leslie, & Owen,
2001). Compared to those who perceived their neighborhoods as having a
moderately favorable aesthetic environment, those who rated their neighbor-
hoods as highly favorable were 16% more likely to walk for exercise,
whereas those who perceived their neighborhood as least favorable were
41% less likely to walk.
In addition to the overall qualities that contribute to pleasurability, specific
environmental features related to pleasurability have also been associated
with walking. For example, the presence of mixed uses and a higher percent-
age of ground floor space devoted to retail were positively related to walking
for commuting (Cervero, 1988). Setbacks have also been linked to walking.
Using building age as a proxy for setbacks, Parsons Brinkerhoff (as cited in
Frank et al., n.d.) found that in newer areas with presumably larger setbacks,
only 1.9% of travelers walked, whereas in older areas with smaller setbacks,
5.3% walked. Setbacks may affect a person’s perception of the architectural
scale of the setting—a quality related to pleasurability.
The relationship between physical and natural environmental attributes
and preferences has been researched quite comprehensively. Preferences
may be particularly salient both for strolling walking by motivating an other-
wise unmotivated person to stroll and destination walking by influencing a
person’s decision to walk or drive to a destination. More research is needed to
further understand how pleasurability factors affect the decision to walk in
both instances.
 Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS 831

CHOICE

Underlying the hierarchy of walking needs model within the social-

ecological framework is the presumption that the choice to walk exists. For
destination walking, the choice is between walking and an alternate form of
transportation, although for strolling, the choice is between walking and not
walking. Regardless of the type of walking trip, if no choice exists (i.e., the
person must walk), the hierarchy of walking needs matters little.
The existence of choice is particularly crucial with respect to the influence
of a person’s higher-order needs. For example, with destination trips, if a per-
son has no access to a vehicular mode of transport, he or she has no choice but
to walk. Although this person may consider his or her more basic needs such
as feasibility (the person may wait for an appropriate time to walk) and possi-
bly accessibility (there must be a destination to walk to), higher-order needs
will rarely affect a person’s decision to walk if his or her choice is severely
limited or absent. The issue of choice may be particularly salient for children,
adolescents, the economically disadvantaged, and the elderly. These groups
may forgo their need for safety or comfort because of their limited choice.

SELF-SELECTION BIAS

One final consideration must be mentioned: the issue of self-selection.

The self-selection problem refers to whether people choose to live in a neigh-
borhood (or work in a particular location) because the design of the neighbor-
hood provides the affordances for them to walk or whether the particular
characteristics of a neighborhood influence a person’s choice to walk. It may
be that the hierarchy of walking needs structure comes into play in the selec-
tion of one’s neighborhood, rather than each time a person decides whether to
walk within his or her neighborhood.

CONCLUSION

Existing research has identified many individual, group, regional, and

physical-environmental variables that affect physical activity. Missing, to
date, has been a comprehensive model for how these factors work together to
shape walking. Recently, Bauman, Sallis, Dzewaltowski, and Owen (2002)
evaluated the literature examining the correlates of physical activity. They
832 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / November 2005

found that only a small minority of studies used a theoretical framework.

Additionally, Bauman et al. (2002) found that many variables that were sig-
nificantly related to walking were not associated with any of the existing the-
ories of walking behavior, resulting in a hodgepodge of variables without a
framework from which to understand their role in affecting physical activity.
The overall social-ecological model provided here, along with the hierar-
chy of walking needs model, provides a framework for understanding how all
of these different factors may work together to affect walking behavior. This
model attempts to explain how individual, group, regional, and physical-
environmental factors all affect walking at different stages of the behavioral
decision-making process. It organizes several categories of factors (feasi-
bility, accessibility, safety, comfort, and pleasurability) into a hierarchy of
prepotency and assembles other categories of factors (individual, group, and
regional) into clusters of possible moderators encompassed within a person’s
life cycle circumstances. This framework helps to organize existing findings
and can suggest fruitful avenues for future research.
The hierarchy of walking needs model within the social-ecological frame-
work can also be highly useful in guiding both policy and community inter-
ventions. This model recognizes the need for theories to have “applied util-
ity” (Stokols, 1987, p. 61). That is, theories should aid in the understanding of
a community problem as well as propose suggestions for effective policy
interventions (Stokols, 1987). The hierarchical nature of this model provides
built-in “leverage points” (Stokols, 1996, p. 290). That is, the model hypoth-
esizes on the most effective targets for change. For example, if a community
lacks the necessary features to fulfill residents’ safety, comfort, and pleasur-
ability needs, safety features would be identified as the leverage point.
Addressing higher-order needs without first satisfying lower-order needs
may be less effective for increasing walking. Thus, a community can assess
which needs are deficient, identify the prime targets for intervention, and
increase the effectiveness of the intervention. Leverage points become partic-
ularly important to community programs and policy recommendations when
one recognizes that resources are typically limited and not all interventions
can be funded.
The hierarchy of walking needs model, along with the overall social-
ecological model of walking proposed here, underscores the important fact
that there is not one universal remedy for increasing walking. A variety of
individual, group, regional, and physical-environmental factors come into
play. It is imperative then, that policy makers consider their settings and pop-
ulations carefully and adopt a multilevel approach to program interventions
aimed at increasing walking.
 Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS 833

NOTES

1. See Pikora, Giles-Corti, Bull, Jamrozik, and Donovan (2002) for a framework for assess-
ing the environmental determinants of walking and cycling.
2. For a more detailed explanation, see Maslow (1954).
3. Handy (1996a) has defined two types of walking trips. Strolling trips are optional trips,
without particular destinations. Destination trips originate because of a motivation to arrive at a
specific destination.
4. Some trips may be motivated by both the desire to stroll and the desire to arrive at a particu-
lar destination. These trips are considered to be “combination trips.” Further elaboration of this
concept is beyond the scope of this article.
5. A formal literature review is not presented as part of this article (although certainly con-
ducted as necessary background for the construction of this theory) as there are presently litera-
ture reviews that sufficiently cover this body of research.
6. Traffic safety is not subsumed under the need for safety but rather within the comfort need.
This distinction is made because fear of crime is considered to take precedence over the fear of
injury from unsafe traffic conditions. It is recognized, however, that concerns about safety from
both crime and traffic may occur simultaneously or even be reversed from the proposed order,
depending on the population (i.e. children, adults, or the elderly).
7. There has been some criticism of Oscar Newman’s (1972) defensible space theory. See
Cozens, Hillier, and Prescott (2001a, 2001b) and Lloyd (1997) among others.
8. The type of planting affects whether plantings are indeed negatively correlated with fear of
crime or positively correlated with fear of crime. Typically, if the planting blocks views, it will
actually be positively correlated to fear of crime—see Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan (1998).
9. The other nonresidential category included open land uses such as empty lots, pocket
parks, gardens, and public playgrounds. Although this result runs contrary to the hypothesis that
criminals are more likely to target such uses, the researchers believe that the public gardens and
playgrounds represent heavily used sites that exhibit signs of territoriality and as such decrease
residents’ perception of crime.

REFERENCES

Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable streets. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ball, K., Bauman, A., Leslie, E., & Owen, N. (2001). Perceived environmental aesthetics and
convenience and company are associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults.
Preventive Medicine, 33, 434-440.
Ball, K., Crawford, D., & Owen, N. (2000). Too fat to exercise? Obesity as a barrier to physical
activity. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 24, 331-333.
Bauman, A., Smith, B., Stoker, L., Bellow, B., & Booth, M. (1999). Geographical influences on
physical activity participation: Evidence of a ‘coastal effect.’ Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Public Health, 23, 322-324.
Bauman, A. E., Sallis, J. F., Dzewaltowski, D. A., & Owen, N. (2002). Toward a better under-
standing of the influences on physical activity: The role of determinants, correlates, causal
variables, mediators, moderators, and confounders. American Journal of Preventive Medi-
cine, 23(2S), 5-14.
834 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / November 2005

Berrigan, D., & Troiano, R. (2002). The association between urban form and physical activity in
U.S. adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2S), 74-79.
Black, B., Collins, A., & Snell, M. (2001). Encouraging walking: The case of journey-to-school
trips in compact urban areas. Urban Studies, 38, 1121-1141.
Booth, M., Bauman, A., Owen, N., & Gore, C. (1997). Physical activity preferences, preferred
sources of assistance, and perceived barriers to increased activity among physically inactive
Australians. Preventive Medicine, 26, 131-137.
Booth, M., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Clavisi, O., & Leslie, E. (2000). Social-cognitive and per-
ceived environment influences associated with physical activity in older Australians. Pre-
ventive Medicine, 31, 15-22.
Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space, and residential burglary: An
environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 203-220.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Mortality patterns—United States, 1997.
Journal of American Medical Association, 282, 1512-1513.
Cervero, R. (1988). Land-use mixing and suburban mobility. Transportation Quarterly, 42, 429-
446.
Cervero, R., & Radisch, C. (1996). Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented
neighborhoods. Transport Policy, 3, 127-141.
Clark, A., & Dornfeld, M. (1994). National bicycling and walking study, Federal Highway
Administration Case Study No. 19: Traffic calming, auto-restricted zones and other traffic
management techniques—Their effects on bicycling and pedestrians. Washington, DC: Fed-
eral Highway Administration.
Cozens, P., Hillier, D., & Prescott, G. (2001a). Crime and the design of residential property—
Exploring the theoretical background—Part 1. Property Management, 19, 136-164.
Cozens, P., Hillier, D., & Prescott, G. (2001b). Crime and the design of residential property—
Exploring the perceptions of planning professional, burglars and other users—Part 2. Prop-
erty Management, 19, 222-248.
Day, K. (1999). Strangers in the night: Women’s fear of sexual assault on urban college cam-
puses. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 16, 289-312.
Dieleman, F., Dijst, M., & Burghouwt, G. (2002). Urban form and travel behavior: Micro-level
household attributes and residential context. Urban Studies, 39, 507-528.
Federal Highway Administration. (1995). Nationwide personal transportation survey. Retrieved
on November 24, 2002, from http://wwwcta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/doc/index.shtml
Fischer, B., & Nasar, J. (1992). Fear of crime in relations to three exterior site features: Prospect,
refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35-65.
Frank, L., Engelke, P., Schmid, T., & Killingsworth, R. (n.d.). How land use and transportation
systems impact public health: A literature review of the relationship between physical activ-
ity and built form (Working paper #1). Retrieved September 3, 2003 from http://www.cdc.
gov/nccdphp/dnpa/pdf/aces-workingpaper1.pdf
Frank, L., & Pivo, G. (1994). Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes
of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record,
1466, 44-52.
Friedman, B., Gordon, S., & Peers, J. (1994). Effect of neotraditional neighborhood design on
travel characteristics. Transportation Research Record, 1466, 63-70.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, act-
ing, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
 Alfonzo / WALKING NEEDS 835

Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. (2002a). The relative influence of individual, social and physical
environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science and Medicine, 54, 1793-1812.
Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. (2002b). Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physi-
cal activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Pre-
ventive Medicine, 35, 601-611.
Hall, K., & Porterfield, G. (2001). Community by design: New Urbanism for suburbs and small
communities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Handy, S. (1996a). Urban form and pedestrian choices: Study of Austin neighborhoods. Trans-
portation Research Record, 1552, 135-144.
Handy, S. (1996b). Understanding the link between urban form and nonwork travel behavior.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15, 183-198.
Herzog, T. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preferences for urban spaces. Journal of Environmen-
tal Psychology, 12, 237-248.
Herzog, T., & Smith, G. (1988). Danger, mystery and environmental preference. Environment
and Behavior, 20, 320-344.
Hess, P., Vernez-Moudon, A., Snyder, M., & Stanilov, K. (1999). Site design and pedestrian
travel. Transportation Research Record, 1674, 9-19.
Hope, T., & Hough, M. (1988). Area, crime and incivility: A profile from the British Crime Sur-
vey. In T. Hope & M. Shaw (Eds.), Communities and crime reduction (pp. 30-47). London:
HMSO.
Kaplan, S. (1972, January). The dimensions of the visual environment: Methodological consid-
erations. In W. J. Mitchell (Ed.) Environmental design: Research and practice. Proceedings
of the Environmental Design Research Association Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
Kuo, F., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense
of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28-59.
Leslie, E., Owen, N., Salmon, J., Bauman, A., Sallis, J., & Kai Lo, S. (1999). Insufficiently active
Australian college students: Perceived personal, social, and environmental influences. Pre-
ventive Medicine, 28, 20-27.
Lloyd, R. (1997). Creating defensible space—A review. Journal of the American Planning Asso-
ciation, 63, 523-524.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Maxfield, M. G. (1987, November). Incivilities and fear of crime in England and Wales and the
United States: A comparative analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Society of Criminology, Montreal, Canada.
Michael, S. N., & Hull, R. B. (1994). Effects of vegetation on crime in urban parks. Blacksburg,
VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Nasar, J. (1983). Adult viewers’ preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of
environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15, 589-614.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York:
Macmillan.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (2000). Benefits of bicycling: Health benefits.
Retrieved on November 24, 2002, from http://www.walkinginfo.org
Perkins, D., Meeks, J., & Taylor, R. (1992). The physical environment of street blocks and resi-
dent perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and measurement. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 12, 21-34.
Perkins, D. D. (1986, August). The crime-related physical and social environmental correlates
of citizen participation in block associations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
836 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / November 2005

Perkins, D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R., & Taylor, R. (1993). The physical environment of street
crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
13, 29-49.
Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., & Donovan, R. (2002). Developing a frame-
work for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Social Sci-
ence and Medicine, 56, 1693-1703.
Ross, C. (2000). Walking, exercising and smoking: Does neighborhood matter? Social Science
and Medicine, 51, 265-274.
Skogan, W. G., & Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping with crime: Individual and neighborhood
reactions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Southworth, M. (1997). Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional communities at the
urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 28-45.
Ståhl, T., Rütten, A., Nutbeam, D., Bauman, A., Kannas, L., Abel, T., et al. (2001). The impor-
tance of the social environment for physically active lifestyle—Results from an international
study. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 1-10.
Stamps, A. E., III. (1997). Some streets of San Francisco: Preference effects of trees, cars, wires,
and buildings. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 81-93.
Stokols, D. (1987). Conceptual strategies of environmental psychology. In D. Stokols &
I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 41-70). New York: John
Wiley.
Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health
promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10, 282-298.
Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. (1984). Block crime and fear: Defensible space,
local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
21, 303-331.
Untermann, R. (1984). Accommodating the pedestrian: Adapting towns and neighborhoods for
walking and bicycling. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Vernez-Moudon, A., Hess, P., Snyder, M., & Stanilov, K. (1997). Effects of site design on pedes-
trian travel in mixed-use, medium-density environments. Transportation Research Record,
1578, 48-55.