ArticleHealth & place2021
Walkability measures to predict the likelihood of walking in a place: A classification and regression tree analysis.
Article in Health & place, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting sustainable urban tourism in Historic Sari, Iran through GIS-based walkability planning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Spatial analysis of fast-food accessibility and obesity among adults in Malaysia nationwide.PloS one · 2025Article
- Identifying obesogenic environment through spatial clustering of body mass index among adults.International journal of health geographics · 2024Article
- Big data from small animals: integrating multi-level environmental data into the Dog Aging Project.Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) · 2023Article
- The associations between place-based measures of walkability and physical activity across a range of diverse streetscapes.Preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Environmental data and methods from the Accumulating Data to Optimally Predict Obesity Treatment (ADOPT) core measures environmental working group.Data in brief · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Walkability is a popular and ubiquitous term at the intersection of urban planning and public health. As the number of potential walkability measures grows in the literature, there is a need to compare their relative importance for specific research objectives. This study demonstrates a classification and regression tree (CART) model to compare five familiar measures of walkability from the literature for their relative ability to predict whether or not walking occurs in a dataset of objectively measured locations. When analyzed together, the measures had moderate-to-high accuracy (87.8% agreement: 65.6% of true walking GPS-measured points classified as walking and 93.4% of non-walking points as non-walking). On its own, the most well-known composite measure, Walk Score, performed only slightly better than measures of the built environment composed of a single variable (transit ridership, employment density, and residential density).Thus there may be contexts where transparent and longitudinally available measures of urban form are worth a marginal tradeoff in prediction accuracy. This comparison of walkability measures using CART highlights the importance for public health and urban design researchers to think carefully about how and why particular walkability measures are used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.