Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30220861›Full record

ArticleTransportation research. Part D, Transport and environment2017

Differences in Behavior, Time, Location, and Built Environment between Objectively Measured Utilitarian and Recreational Walking.

Bumjoon Kang, Anne V Moudon, Philip M Hurvitz, Brian E Saelens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transportation research. Part D, Transport and environment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Beyond the bus stop: where transit users walk.Journal of transport & health · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bumjoon KangDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York, 114 Diefendorf Hall, 3435 Main St, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA, bumjoonk@bufflo.edu.
Anne V MoudonUrban Form Lab and the Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, TRAC UW, Box 354802, 1107 NE 45th Street Suite 535, Seattle, WA 98105, USA, moudon@uw.edu.
Philip M HurvitzUrban Form Lab and the Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington TRAC UW, Box 354802, 1107 NE 45th Street Suite 535, Seattle, WA 98105, USA, phurvitz@uw.edu.
Brian E SaelensSeattle Children's Research Institute and Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington Child Health, Behavior and Development, 2001 8 Ave, Seattle, WA 98121, USA, brian.saelens@seattlechildrens.org.

Funding

The effect of light rail transit on physical activity: a natural experimentR01HL091881 · NHLBI · SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI SAELENS, BRIAN E · 2008 to 2012
$3.2M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL091881
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUtilitarian and recreational walking both contribute to physical activity. Yet walking for these two purposes may be different behaviors. We sought to provide operational definitions of utilitarian and recreational walking and to objectively measure their behavioral, spatial, and temporal differences in order to inform transportation and public health policies and interventions.

methodsData were collected 2008-2009 from 651 Seattle-King County residents, wearing an accelerometer and a GPS unit, and filling-in a travel diary for 7 days. Walking activity bouts were classified as utilitarian or recreational based on whether walking had a destination or not. Differences between the two walking purposes were analyzed, adjusting for the nested structure of walking activity within participants.

resultsOf the 4,905 observed walking bouts, 87.4% were utilitarian and 12.6% recreational walking. Utilitarian walking bouts were 45% shorter in duration (-12.1 min) and 9% faster in speed (+0.3km/h) than recreational walking bouts. Recreational walking occurred more frequently in the home neighborhood and was not associated with recreational land uses. Utilitarian walking occurred in areas having higher residential, employment, and street density, lower residential property value, higher area percentage of mixed-use neighborhood destinations, lower percentage of parks/trails, and lower average topographic slope than recreational walking.

conclusionUtilitarian and recreational walking are substantially different in terms of frequency, speed, duration, location, and related built environment. Policies that promote walking should adopt type-specific strategies. The high occurrence of recreational walking near home highlights the importance of the home neighborhood for this activity.

Indexed as

accelerometeractive transportationGPShome and non-home based walkingpedestrian

Identifiers

PMID30220861
PMCPMC6136454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.