Walking Behavior in Temuco, Chile: The Contribution of Built Environment and Socio-Demographic Factors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. The Factors Influencing Walking Behavior (Overall Walking)
4.3. The Factors Influencing Walking Behavior Based on Three Types of Destination
5. Discussion
5.1. The Influence of Socio-Demographic and Social Factors on Walking Behavior
5.2. The Influence of Built Environment Factors on Walking Behavior
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Harms, L.; Bertolini, L.; Brömmelstroet, M.T. Spatial and social variations in cycling patterns in a mature cycling country exploring differences and trends. J. Transp. Health 2014, 1, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiao, L.; Yang, L.; Liu, J.; Yang, H. Built Environment Correlates of the Propensity of Walking and Cycling. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paydar, M.; Fard, A.; Khaghani, M. Pedestrian Walkways for Health in Shiraz, Iran, the Contribution of Attitudes, and Perceived Environmental Attributes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paydar, M.; Fard, A.K. The Hierarchy of Walking Needs and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Transport Forum. COVID-19 Transport Brief: Re-Spacing Our Cities for Resilience, Analysis, Factors and Figures for Transport’s Response to the Coronavirus. 2020. Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/respacing-cities-resilience-covid-19.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2022).
- Cattaneo, O.; Piemonte, C.; Poensgen, K. Transition Finance Country Study of Chile: Better Managing Graduation from ODA eligibility; OECD Development Co-Operation Working Papers, No. 70; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Actualización Plan de Transporte Temuco y Desarrollo de Anteproyecto, Etapa II, Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones, SECTRA, Chile. 2017. Available online: http://www.sectra.gob.cl/biblioteca/detalle1.asp?mfn=3227 (accessed on 27 March 2022).
- Herrmann-Lunecke, M.G.; Mora, R.; Sagaris, L. Persistence of walking in Chile: Lessons for urban sustainability. Transp. Rev. 2020, 40, 135–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; De Donder, L.; Clarys, P.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Buffel, T.; De Witte, N.; Dury, S.; Verté, D.; Deforche, B. Relationships between the perceived neighborhood social environment and walking for transportation among older adults. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014, 104, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krogstad, J.R.; Hjorthol, R.; Tennøy, A. Improving walking conditions for older adults. A three-step method investigation. Eur. J. Ageing 2015, 12, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harms, I.M.; van Dijken, J.H.; Brookhuis, K.A.; de Waard, D. Walking without Awareness. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Inoue, S.; Ohya, Y.; Odagiri, Y.; Takamiya, T.; Ishii, K.; Kitabayashi, M.; Suijo, K.; Sallis, J.F.; Shimomitsu, T. Association between Perceived Neighborhood Environment and Walking among Adults in 4 Cities in Japan. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 20, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paydar, M.; Fard, A.; Khaghani, M. Walking toward Metro Stations; the Contribution of Distance, Attitudes, and Perceived Built Environment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troped, P.J.; Tamura, K.; McDonough, M.H.; Starnes, H.A.; James, P.; Ben-Joseph, E.; Cromley, E.; Puett, R.; Melly, S.J.; Laden, F. Direct and Indirect Associations Between the Built Environment and Leisure and Utilitarian Walking in Older Women. Ann. Behav. Med. 2016, 51, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yun, H.Y. Environmental Factors Associated with Older Adult’s Walking Behaviors: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Craig, C.L.; Brownson, R.C.; E Cragg, S.; Dunn, A.L. Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: A study examining walking to work. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 23, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plaut, P.O. Non-motorized commuting in the US. Transp. Res. Part D 2005, 10, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ito, K.; Reardon, T.G.; Arcaya, M.C.; Shamsuddin, S.; Gute, D.; Srinivasan, S. Built Environment and Walking to School: Findings from a Student Travel Behavior Survey in Massachusetts. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2017, 2666, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.J.; Heinrich, K.M. Built Environment Factors Influencing Walking to School Behaviors: A Comparison between a Small and Large US City. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khalil-Nivin, S. Factors Affecting Students Walking to School: Case Study of Two Middle Schools in Lincoln, Nebraska. Community and Regional Planning Program: Student Projects and Theses. 2013. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/arch_crp_theses/18 (accessed on 30 April 2022).
- Sun, G.; Acheampong, R.A.; Lin, H.; Pun, V.C. Understanding Walking Behavior among University Students Using Theory of Planned Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 13794–13806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, G.; Oreskovic, N.M.; Lin, H. How do changes to the built environment influence walking behaviors? a longitudinal study within a university campus in Hong Kong. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2014, 13, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mesters, I.; Wahl, S.; Van Keulen, H.M. Socio-demographic, medical and social-cognitive correlates of physical activity behavior among older adults (45–70 years): A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Leon, C.F.M.; Cagney, K.A.; Bienias, J.L.; Barnes, L.L.; Skarupski, K.A.; Scherr, P.A.; Evans, D.A. Neighborhood Social Cohesion and Disorder in Relation to Walking in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A multilevel analysis. J. Aging Health 2009, 21, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paydar, M.; Fard, A.K. The Contribution of Socio-Demographic Factors to Walking Behavior Considering Destination Types; Case Study: Temuco, Chile. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Copperman, R.B.; Bhat, C.R. An analysis of the determinants of children’s weekend physical activity participation. Transportation 2006, 34, 67–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menai, M.; Charreire, H.; Feuillet, T.; Salze, P.; Weber, C.; Enaux, C.; Andreeva, V.A.; Hercberg, S.; Nazare, J.-A.; Perchoux, C.; et al. Walking and cycling for commuting, leisure and errands: Relations with individual characteristics and leisure-time physical activity in a cross-sectional survey (the ACTI-Cités project). Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bicalho, P.G.; Géa-Horta, T.; Moreira, A.; Gazzinelli, A.; Velasquez-Melendez, G. Association between sociodemographic and health factors and the practice of walking in a rural area. Ciênc. Saúde Colet. 2018, 23, 1323–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ory, M.G.; Towne, S.; Won, J.; Forjuoh, S.N.; Lee, C. Social and environmental predictors of walking among older adults. BMC Geriatr. 2016, 16, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chan, E.T.H.; Schwanen, T.; Banister, D. The role of perceived environment, neighbourhood characteristics, and attitudes in walking behaviour: Evidence from a rapidly developing city in China. Transportation 2019, 48, 431–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hahm, Y.; Yoon, H.; Jung, D.; Kwon, H. Do built environments affect pedestrians’ choices of walking routes in retail districts? A study with GPS experiments in Hongdae retail district in Seoul, South Korea. Habitat. Int. 2017, 70, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamruzzaman; Washington, S.; Baker, D.; Brown, W.; Giles-Corti, B.; Turrell, G. Built environment impacts on walking for transport in Brisbane, Australia. Transportation 2014, 43, 53–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Y.; Diez-Roux, A.V. Adults’ Daily Walking for Travel and Leisure: Interaction between Attitude Toward Walking and the Neighborhood Environment. Am. J. Health Promot. 2016, 31, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zapata-Diomedi, B.; Veerman, L. The association between built environment features and physical activity in the Australian context: A synthesis of the literature. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; Van Holle, V.; Simons, D.; De Ridder, R.; Clarys, P.; Goubert, L.; Nasar, J.; Salmon, J.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Deforche, B. Environmental factors influencing older adults’ walking for transportation: A study using walk-along interviews. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clark, A.F.; Scott, D.M. Does the social environment influence active travel? An investigation of walking in Hamilton, Canada. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 31, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleland, V.; Ball, K.; Hume, C.; Timperio, A.; King, A.C.; Crawford, D. Individual, social and environmental correlates of physical activity among women living in socioeconmically disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 2011–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stathi, A.; Gilbert, H.; Fox, K.R.; Coulson, J.; Davis, M.; Thompson, J.L. Determinants of neighborhood activity of adults age 70 and over: A mixed-methods study. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2012, 20, 148–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Harley, A.E.; Katz, M.L.; Heaney, C.A.; Duncan, D.T.; Buckworth, J.; Odoms-Young, A.; Willis, S.K. Social support and companionship among active African American women. Am. J. Health Behav. 2009, 33, 673–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Darlow, S.D.; Xu, X. The influence of close others’ exercise habits and perceived social support on exercise. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2011, 12, 575–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, K.M.; Pinkston, M.M.; Poston, W.S.C. Obesity and the Built Environment. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2005, 105, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kerr, J.; Emond, J.A.; Badland, H.; Reis, R.; Sarmiento, O.L.; Carlson, J.; Sallis, J.F.; Cerin, E.; Cain, K.L.; Conway, T.; et al. Perceived Neighborhood Environmental Attributes Associated with Walking and Cycling for Transport among Adult Residents of 17 Cities in 12 Countries: The IPEN Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Oakes, J.M.; Forsyth, A.; Schmitz, K.H. The effects of neighborhood density and street connectivity on walking behavior: The Twin Cities walking study. Epidemiol. Perspect. Innov. 2007, 4, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pelclová, J.; Frömel, K.; Bláha, L.; Zając-Gawlak, I.; Tlučáková, L. Neighborhood environment and walking for transport and recreation in central European older adults. Acta Gymnica 2012, 42, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saelens, B.; Handy, S. Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, S550–S566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gebel, K.; Bauman, A.; Owen, N. Correlates of Non-Concordance between Perceived and Objective Measures of Walkability. Ann. Behav. Med. 2009, 37, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Inoue, S.; Ohya, Y.; Odagiri, Y.; Takamiya, T.; Kamada, M.; Okada, S.; Oka, K.; Kitabatake, Y.; Nakaya, T.; Sallis, J.F.; et al. Perceived Neighborhood Environment and Walking for Specific Purposes among Elderly Japanese. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Frank, L.D.; Schmid, T.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Chapman, J.; Saelens, B.E. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Donovan, R.J. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Prev. Med. 2002, 3, 601–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paydar, M.; Kamani-Fard, A. Perceived legibility in relation to path choice of commuters in central business district. Urban Des. Int. 2016, 21, 213–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paydar, M.; Kamani-Fard, A.; Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R. Perceived Security of Women in Relation to Their Path Choice toward Sustainable Neighbourhood in Santiago, Chile. Cities 2017, 60, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Chi, G.; Jackson, R. Neighbourhood built environment and walking behaviours: Evidence from the rural American South. Indoor Built Environ. 2017, 27, 938–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemieux, M.; Godin, G. How well do cognitive and environmental variables predict active commuting? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2009, 6, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Olsen, J.R.; Mitchell, R.; Mutrie, N.; Foley, L.; Ogilvie, D. Population levels of, and inequalities in, active travel: A national, cross-sectional study of adults in Scotland. Prev. Med. Rep. 2017, 8, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervero, R.; Sarmiento, O.L.; Jacoby, E.; Gomez, L.F.; Neiman, A. Influences of Built Environments on Walking and Cycling: Lessons from Bogotá. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2009, 3, 203–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berrigan, D.; Pickle, L.W.; Dill, J. Associations between street connectivity and active transportation. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2010, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Smith, A.D.L. The Relationship between Neighborhood Environment and Walking Behavior: The Influence of Perceptions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Chudyk, A.M.; Winters, M.; Moniruzzaman; Ashe, M.C.; Gould, J.S.; McKay, H. Destinations matter: The association between where older adults live and their travel behavior. J. Transp. Health 2014, 2, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rind, E.; Shortt, N.; Mitchell, R.; Richardson, E.A.; Pearce, J. Are income-related di_erences in active travel associated with physical environmental characteristics? A multi-level ecological approach. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clark, A.; Scott, D.M.; Yiannakoulias, N. Examining the relationship between active travel, weather, and the built environment: A multilevel approach using a GPS-enhanced dataset. Transportation 2013, 41, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R.; Paydar, M.; Hamidi, S. University-related travel behavior: Young adults’ decision-making in Iran. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 43, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berger, U.; DER, G.; Mutrie, N.; Hannah, M.K. The impact of retirement on physical activity. Ageing Soc. 2005, 25, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, F.; Norman, I.J.; While, A.E. Physical activity in older people: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foster, C.; Hillsdon, M.; Thorogood, M. Environmental perceptions and walking in English adults. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2004, 58, 924–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rader, N.; May, D.; Goodrum, S. An empirical assessment of the threat of victimization: Considering fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Sociol. Spectr. 2007, 27, 475–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, H. Stranger danger: Explaining women’s fear of crime. West. Criminol. Rev. 2003, 4, 203–214. [Google Scholar]
- DiPietro, L.; Jin, M.Y.; Talegawkar, S.; Matthews, C.E. The Joint Associations of Sedentary Time and Physical Activity with Mobility Disability in Older People: The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. J. Gerontol. Ser. A 2017, 73, 532–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, F.B.; Li, T.Y.; Colditz, G.A.; Willett, W.C.; Manson, J.E. Television Watching and Other Sedentary Behaviors in Relation to Risk of Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Women. JAMA J. Am. Med Assoc. 2003, 289, 1785–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gössling, S. ICT and transport behavior: A conceptual review. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2018, 12, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kini, R.B. Adoption and Evaluation of Mobile Commerce in Chile. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 2009, 12, 75–88. [Google Scholar]
- Vandelanotte, C.; Sugiyama, T.; Gardiner, P.; Owen, N.; Steele, R.; McConnon, A. Associations of Leisure-Time Internet and Computer Use With Overweight and Obesity, Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors: Cross-Sectional Study. J. Med. Int. Res. 2009, 11, e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woessner, M.N.; Tacey, A.; Levinger-Limor, A.; Parker, A.G.; Levinger, P.; Levinger, I. The Evolution of Technology and Physical Inactivity: The Good, the Bad, and the Way Forward. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 655491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, E.J.; Goodman, A.; Sahlqvist, S.; Bull, F.C.; Ogilvie, D. Correlates of walking and cycling for transport and recreation: Factor structure, reliability and behavioural associations of the perceptions of the environment in the neighbourhood scale (PENS). Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013, 10, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kotulla, T.; Denstadli, J.M.; Oust, A.; Beusker, E. What Does It Take to Make the Compact City Liveable for Wider Groups? Identifying Key Neighbourhood and Dwelling Features. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stevenson, M.; Thompson, J.; de Sá, T.H.; Ewing, R.; Mohan, D.; McClure, R.; Roberts, I.; Tiwari, G.; Giles-Corti, B.; Sun, X.; et al. Land use, transport, and population health: Estimating the health benefits of compact cities. Lancet 2016, 388, 2925–2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koohsari, M.J.; Sugiyama, T.; Lamb, K.; Villanueva, K.; Owen, N. Street connectivity and walking for transport: Role of neighborhood destinations. Prev. Med. 2014, 66, 118–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leão, A.L.F.; Urbano, M.R. Street connectivity and walking: An empirical study in Londrina- PR. Semin. Ciências Exatas E Tecnológicas 2020, 41, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giehl, M.W.C.; Hallal, P.C.; Corseuil, C.W.; Schneider, I.; D’Orsi, E. Built Environment and Walking Behavior Among Brazilian Older Adults: A Population-Based Study. J. Phys. Act. Health 2016, 13, 617–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liao, Y.; Huang, P.-H.; Hsiang, C.-Y.; Huang, J.-H.; Hsueh, M.-C.; Park, J.-H. Associations of Older Taiwanese Adults’ Personal Attributes and Perceptions of the Neighborhood Environment Concerning Walking for Recreation and Transportation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- King, D. Neighborhood and Individual Factors in Activity in Older Adults: Results from the Neighborhood and Senior Health Study. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2008, 16, 144–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Global Study on Homicide, 2013. United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime, Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs, Research and Trend Analysis Branch, Vienna, Austria. Available online: https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf. (accessed on 30 April 2022).
- Diagnostico Comunal de Seguridad Pública-Temuco, 2015. Instituto Chileno de Estudios Municipales, Dirección de Seguridad Ciudadana, Municipalidad de Temuco. Available online: http://www.temuco.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/diagnosticoseguridadpublica.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2022).
- Cossman, J.S.; Rader, N.E. Fear of Crime and Personal Vulnerability: Examining Self-Reported Health. Sociol. Spectr. 2011, 31, 141–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, M.; Greene, R. Urban safety in residential areas. Global spatial impact and local self-organising processes. In Proceedings of the 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London, UK, 17–19 June 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, A.; Singh, B.; Pundir, N. Effect of Gradient on Pedestrian Flow Characteristics under Mixed Flow Conditions. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 4720–4732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Variable Description | Frequency | Percentage | Mean |
---|---|---|---|---|
Level of walking (Min) | 14.37 | |||
Socio-demographic variables and Familiarity | ||||
Age (Continuous) | 41.39 | |||
Gender | 0 = Female | 1014 | 59.1 | 0.44 |
1 = Male | 701 | 40.9 | ||
Monthly income (Chilean peso) | 0 = More than 324 thousand (Average or more) | 318 | 36.2 | 0.63 |
1 = Less than 324 thousand (low) | 560 | 63.8 | ||
Home owning situation | 0 = Rented | 430 | 25 | 0.74 |
1 = Owner | 1287 | 75 | ||
Education | Primary school and lower | 721 | 42 | |
High school and similar | 857 | 50 | ||
University degree | 137 | 8 | ||
Employment situation | 0 = Without job or retired | 1234 | 72 | 0.28 |
1 = With job | 481 | 28 | ||
Access to Internet | 0 = Without Internet | 796 | 46.4 | 1.54 |
1 = Have internet | 921 | 53.6 | ||
Access to TV | 0 = No TV | 768 | 44.7 | 1.55 |
1 = Have TV | 949 | 55.3 | ||
Work at home | 0 = No | 1659 | 96.7 | 0.03 |
1 = Yes | 56 | 3.3 | ||
Driver’s license | 0 = Do not Have | 1442 | 84.5 | 0.16 |
1 = Have | 265 | 15.5 | ||
Time Living Years (Familiarity) | 0 = Less than one year | 111 | 6.4 | 0.94 |
1 = More than one year | 1610 | 93.6 | ||
Number of Vehicles in each household | 0 = Do not have 1 = Have | 1146 575 | 66.6 33.4 | 0.33 |
Number of Bicycles in each household | 1.07 | |||
Number of People in each household | 4.12 | |||
Number of total trips in each household | 11.95 | |||
Social Factors | ||||
Number of total walking trips in each household | 2.20 | |||
Number of walking trips to total trips | 0.22 | |||
Built Environment Variables | Mean in 800 m buffers (400 m Radius) | |||
Current Housing Type | 0 = Apartment | 144 | 8.4 | 0.92 |
1 = Villa | 1579 | 91.6 | ||
Diversity or Mixed land | Entropy index (5 types of land uses) | 0.57 | ||
Population-employment entropy | 0.30 | |||
Connectivity | Intersection density | 151.91 | ||
Link node ratio (LNR) | 1.49 | |||
Street density | 19.41 | |||
Density | Population density (Number of inhabitants per buffer) | 327.71 | ||
Housing density (Number of housing units per buffer) | 126.83 | |||
Accessibility | Number of Educational destinations per buffer | 1.2 | ||
Number of Health centers and hospitals per buffer | 2.3 | |||
Numbers of commercial land uses per buffer | 5.9 | |||
Number of services including bank and other types | 6.1 | |||
Traffic safety | Number of reported accidents in each buffer in the last year | 1.62 | ||
Personal Security | Number of reported total crime types during last year in each buffer | 17.3 | ||
Aesthetic | Number of trees per buffer | 82.3 | ||
Number of parks and plazas in each buffer | 0.64 | |||
Topography (Slope) | 1 = High slope (more than 15%); 2 = Medium slope (between 5% to 15%); 3 = Low slope (less than 5%) | 2.60 |
Walking Trips Based on the Purpose of the Trips | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Toward educational destinations | 509 | 29.6 |
Toward workplaces | 317 | 18.4 |
Toward shopping | 293 | 17 |
To meet/see someone | 218 | 12.7 |
To health centers | 110 | 6.4 |
For recreation | 85 | 4.9 |
Other case | 189 | 11 |
Variables | Standardized Coefficients | t | p Value |
---|---|---|---|
Sociodemographic variables and familiarity (Level 1) | |||
Gender | 0.106 | 4.406 | 0.000 ** |
Age | 0.159 | 5.847 | 0.000 ** |
Number of persons in each household | 0.075 | 2.238 | 0.025 ** |
Number of total trips in each household | −0.132 | −4.131 | 0.000 ** |
Familiarity | −0.033 | −1.365 | 0.172 |
Driving License | −0.047 | −1.755 | 0.079 * |
Access to Internet | −0.018 | −0.664 | 0.507 |
Access to TV | −0.039 | −1.454 | 0.146 |
Vehicles in each household | −0.036 | −1.388 | 0.165 |
Work at home | 0.030 | 1.221 | 0.222 |
Job situation | 0.081 | 3.170 | 0.002 ** |
Variables of the social environment (Level 2) | |||
Number of walking trips in each household | 0.135 | 4.455 | 0.000 ** |
Variables of the built environment (Level 3) | |||
Housing type | −0.012 | −0.429 | 0.668 |
Number of parks and plazas | 0.089 | 3.565 | 0.000 ** |
Link Node Ratio | −0.10 | −3.025 | 0.003 ** |
Street Density | 0.036 | 1.180 | 0.238 |
Mixed Land Use | 0.087 | 3.098 | 0.002 ** |
Access to educational destinations | −0.073 | −2.874 | 0.004 ** |
Topography | −0.034 | −1.265 | 0.206 |
Population Density | −0.026 | −0.820 | 0.412 |
Housing Density | 0.090 | 2.982 | 0.003 ** |
Variables | Standardized Coefficients | t | p Value |
---|---|---|---|
Sociodemographic variables and familiarity (Level 1) | |||
Gender | 0.102 | 1.768 | 0.078 * |
Age | 0.171 | 2.807 | 0.005 ** |
Number of bicycles in each household | −0.093 | −1.548 | 0.123 |
Number of persons in each household | 0.082 | 0.935 | 0.350 |
Number of total trips in each household | 0.099 | 1.185 | 0.237 |
Familiarity | −0.086 | −1.555 | 0.121 |
Education (“University Degree” is Reference Category) | |||
Primary school and Lower degree | −0.118 | −1.417 | 0.158 |
High school and similar | −0.053 | 0.700 | 0.484 |
Driving License | −0.078 | −1.258 | 0.200 |
Access to Internet | 0.061 | 0.981 | 0.327 |
Access to TV | −0.102 | −1.746 | 0.082 * |
Work at home | 0.043 | 0.787 | 0.432 |
Variables of the social environment (Level 2) | |||
Number of walking trips to total trips | 0.175 | 2.768 | 0.006 ** |
Variables of the built environment (Level 3) | |||
Housing type | 0.007 | 0.105 | 0.917 |
Number of parks and plazas | 0.152 | 2.407 | 0.017 ** |
Number of trees per zone | 0.017 | 0.231 | 0.818 |
Link Node Ratio | 0.019 | 0.227 | 0.821 |
Intersection Density | 0.164 | 2.386 | 0.118 |
Mixed Land Use | 0.130 | 1.877 | 0.062 * |
Access to educational destinations | −0.111 | −1.884 | 0.061 * |
Access to commercial destinations | 0.020 | 0.194 | 0.846 |
Crime rate | −0.159 | −1.928 | 0.055 * |
Total accident rate | −0.176 | −2.030 | 0.043 * |
Housing Density | 0.131 | 2.271 | 0.024 ** |
Variables | Standardized Coefficients | t | p Value |
---|---|---|---|
Sociodemographic variables and familiarity (Level 1) | |||
Gender | 0.080 | 1.875 | 0.061 * |
Age | 0.167 | 2.270 | 0.024 ** |
Number of bicycles in each household | 0.053 | 1.160 | 0.247 |
Number of persons in each household | 0.049 | 0.945 | 0.345 |
Number of total trips in each household | −0.002 | −0.033 | 0.974 |
Familiarity | −0.021 | −0.434 | 0.665 |
Education (Primary school and Lower degree) (“University Degree” is Reference Category) | −0.172 | −2.478 | 0.014 ** |
Driving License | −0.146 | −3.099 | 0.002 ** |
Access to Internet | −0.024 | −0.498 | 0.619 |
Number of vehicles in each household | −0.061 | −1.321 | 0.187 |
Job situation | 0.053 | 1.219 | 0.223 |
Home owning situation | −0.100 | −2.047 | 0.041 ** |
Variables of the social environment (Level 2) | |||
Number of walking trips to total trips | 0.101 | 1.997 | 0.046 * |
Variables of the built environment (Level 3) | |||
Housing type | 0.026 | 0.503 | 0.615 |
Number of parks and plazas | 0.046 | 1.027 | 0.305 |
Number of trees per zone | −0.041 | −0.760 | 0.448 |
Link Node Ratio | −0.080 | −1.407 | 0.160 |
Mixed Land Use | −0.030 | −0.573 | 0.567 |
Access to educational destinations | 0.181 | −3.502 | 0.001 ** |
Topography | −0.058 | −1.287 | 0.202 |
Variables | Standardized Coefficients | t | p Value |
---|---|---|---|
Sociodemographic variables and familiarity (Level 1) | |||
Gender | 0.041 | 0.697 | 0.486 |
Age | 0.065 | 0.969 | 0.334 |
Monthly income | 0.186 | 2.792 | 0.006 ** |
Job situation | −0.058 | −0.867 | 0.387 |
Number of persons in each household | 0.124 | 1.892 | 0.060 * |
Education (Primary school and Lower degree) (“University Degree” is Reference Category) | 0.011 | 0.181 | 0.857 |
Driving License | 0.042 | 0.664 | 0.507 |
Access to Internet | −0.143 | −2.274 | 0.024 ** |
Work at home | 0.267 | 4.107 | 0.000 ** |
Home owning situation | 0.084 | 1.414 | 0.158 |
Variables of the social environment (Level 2) | |||
Number of walking trips to total trips | 0.193 | 3.129 | 0.002 ** |
Variables of the built environment (Level 3) | |||
Housing type | −0.057 | −0.887 | 0.376 |
Number of parks and plazas | 0.134 | 2.102 | 0.036 ** |
Number of trees per zone | −0.087 | −0.975 | 0.330 |
Link Node Ratio | −0.134 | −1.348 | 0.179 |
Intersection Density | 0.007 | 0.085 | 0.932 |
Mixed Land Use | 0.245 | 2.612 | 0.010 ** |
Access to services | −0.187 | −2.032 | 0.143 |
Access to educational destinations | −0.122 | −1.476 | 0.141 |
Access to health canters | 0.114 | 1.450 | 0.148 |
Crime rate | 0.128 | 1.541 | 0.124 |
Total accident rate | 0.109 | 1.307 | 0.192 |
Topography | 0.166 | 2.240 | 0.026 ** |
Housing Density | 0.048 | 0.798 | 0.425 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Paydar, M.; Arangua Calzado, J.; Kamani Fard, A. Walking Behavior in Temuco, Chile: The Contribution of Built Environment and Socio-Demographic Factors. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12050133
Paydar M, Arangua Calzado J, Kamani Fard A. Walking Behavior in Temuco, Chile: The Contribution of Built Environment and Socio-Demographic Factors. Behavioral Sciences. 2022; 12(5):133. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12050133
Chicago/Turabian StylePaydar, Mohammad, Javier Arangua Calzado, and Asal Kamani Fard. 2022. "Walking Behavior in Temuco, Chile: The Contribution of Built Environment and Socio-Demographic Factors" Behavioral Sciences 12, no. 5: 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12050133
APA StylePaydar, M., Arangua Calzado, J., & Kamani Fard, A. (2022). Walking Behavior in Temuco, Chile: The Contribution of Built Environment and Socio-Demographic Factors. Behavioral Sciences, 12(5), 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12050133