Walkability Audit Tool

Abstract

The Walkability Audit Tool (often designated as the Worksite Walkability Audit Tool) is an environmental assessment instrument designed by Andrew L. Dannenberg, Timothy W. Cramer, and Christopher J. Gibson (2005) to systematically quantify the physical, operational, and aesthetic characteristics of pedestrian environments surrounding occupational worksites. The instrument addresses a primary public health imperative: mitigating chronic physical inactivity by engineering and assessing built environments that facilitate walking as a viable form of utilitarian transport and recreational physical activity. Constructed as a segment-level observational audit, the tool measures nine discrete environmental dimensions categorized into three hierarchically weighted tiers based on empirical risk and behavioral salience: High Importance (Pedestrian Facilities, Pedestrian Conflicts, Crosswalks; weighted × 3), Medium Importance (Maintenance, Path Size, Buffer, Universal Accessibility, Aesthetics; weighted × 2), and Low Importance (Shade; weighted × 1). Each dimension is scored on an anchored 5-point ordinal scale (ranging from 1 = deficient/hazardous to 5 = optimal/protective), accompanied by five open-ended qualitative prompts evaluating safety hazards, unpleasant elements, connectivity, and recreational viability. Mathematical aggregation yields a standardized index score ranging from 0 to 100, which stratifies pedestrian segments into distinct risk and environmental quality tiers: high-risk/unattractive (0–39), medium-risk/average (40–69), and low-risk/pleasant (70–100). Psychometric and environmental audits demonstrate robust inter-rater reliability across trained observers (intraclass correlation coefficients and Cohen’s κ ranging from 0.62 to 0.91 across sub-dimensions), substantial content validity grounded in transportation engineering and environmental psychology paradigms, and convergent validity with objective geographic information system (GIS) metrics of walkability and device-measured worker step counts. This article delineates the psychometric architecture, theoretical foundations, structural factor configurations, administrative protocols, and translational applications of the tool.

Keywords

Walkability Audit Tool, environmental assessment, built environment, physical activity, worksite health promotion, pedestrian safety, environmental psychology, active commuting, psychometrics, observational audit

Authors

The Walkability Audit Tool was developed by a multidisciplinary team of public health scientists, epidemiologists, and environmental health specialists led by:

• Andrew L. Dannenberg, MD, MPH: Affiliate Professor at the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences and the Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington; formerly with the Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
• Timothy W. Cramer: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
• Christopher J. Gibson: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Correspondence regarding the foundational instrument was originally directed to the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop F-60, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.

Purpose

Physical inactivity represents one of the leading modifiable risk factors for global morbidity and premature mortality, contributing substantially to cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, musculoskeletal disorders, and common mental health conditions such as major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety. Despite the well-documented physiological and psychological benefits of habitual physical activity, large proportions of the adult working population fail to achieve the minimum aerobic activity benchmarks established by global health authorities (e.g., at least 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity weekly). Because working adults spend a substantial majority of their waking hours at or commuting to work, the worksite and its contiguous micro-environment constitute an ecological niche of paramount importance for public health interventions.

Walking is the most accessible, equitable, and low-barrier modality of physical activity available across demographic and socioeconomic strata. However, the decision to walk—whether for utilitarian purposes (e.g., transit access, lunchtime errands, moving between campus facilities) or leisure/recreation—is heavily contingent upon environmental affordances. Many modern employment hubs, suburban corporate office parks, and institutional campuses were developed under automobile-centric planning paradigms characterized by fragmented pedestrian infrastructure, vast surface parking lots, high-speed arterial roadways, deficient pedestrian crossings, and negligible aesthetic or bioclimatic considerations. In such environments, walking is perceived not merely as inconvenient, but as psychologically taxing, cognitively disorienting, and physically perilous.

The Worksite Walkability Audit Tool was engineered to bridge the gap between abstract urban planning ideals and granular, actionable worksite environmental evaluations. Its primary purposes are multi-fold:

• Systematic Micro-Scale Environmental Diagnosis: To evaluate specific street, pathway, and campus segments around occupational settings, identifying microscale physical barriers (e.g., broken concrete, lack of curb cuts, absent crosswalks, roadway proximity) that cannot be captured by macro-level GIS databases.
• Empirically Weighted Safety and Quality Indexing: To synthesize multifaceted environmental attributes into an interpretable metric (0–100) that explicitly prioritizes pedestrian survival and safety over aesthetic ornamentation, while still recognizing the motivational value of visual attractiveness and thermal comfort.
• Intervention Prioritization and Capital Allocation: To equip facility managers, human resource administrators, corporate wellness committees, urban planners, and public health practitioners with empirical diagnostic data to prioritize infrastructure capital improvements, negotiate municipal pedestrian interventions, and design safe worksite walking routes.
• Occupational Health and Psychosocial Research: To provide researchers with a standardized, reliable measurement tool for testing ecological hypotheses regarding how environmental conditions influence active commuting, workplace stress restoration, sedentary behavior reduction, and perceived workplace safety.

Psychological Construct

The Walkability Audit Tool evaluates the overarching construct of perceived and objective environmental walkability within an occupational context. Psychometrically, walkability is a multidimensional, formative environmental construct representing the degree to which the built, natural, and socio-spatial characteristics of an area support, invite, or deter pedestrian travel. Rather than reflecting an internal latent mental state of the rater, the tool operationalizes walkability as a composite physical affordance landscape that exerts direct behavioral and psychological pressure on the human agent. The instrument decomposes this overarching construct into nine specific dimensions, structured hierarchically across three importance tiers:

1. High Importance Dimensions (Safety and Direct Hazard Mitigation)

• Pedestrian Facilities: Evaluates the physical existence, continuity, and structural integrity of dedicated pedestrian paths (e.g., continuous paved sidewalks separated from vehicular carriageways versus dirt desire lines or forced co-presence within vehicular traffic lanes). Psychologically, the absence of dedicated facilities triggers heightened vigilance and cognitive load, activating chronic threat appraisal.
• Pedestrian Conflicts: Captures the operational friction between pedestrians and motor vehicles, dictated by traffic velocity, vehicular volume, sightline geometry, and the frequency of vehicular conflict points such as commercial driveways, parking ingress/egress ramps, and loading docks. This dimension directly measures objective exposure to vehicular collision risk.
• Crosswalks: Assesses the presence, visual conspicuity, design quality, and operational timing of intersection control systems (e.g., high-visibility zebra striping, pedestrian refuge islands, and dedicated pedestrian signal heads with countdown displays). Crosswalks mitigate the psychological stress of roadway crossing by establishing clear legal and spatial entitlement for pedestrians.

2. Medium Importance Dimensions (Functional Usability, Universal Design, and Ambient Quality)

• Maintenance: Gauges physical decay, infrastructural incivilities, and surface defects, including concrete cracking, heaving, buckling from tree roots, standing water, and overgrown vegetation. Grounded in the environmental psychology of perceived disorder, structural degradation signals institutional neglect, introduces tripping hazards, and induces avoidance behavior.
• Path Size: Measures the effective, usable horizontal clear width of the pedestrian corridor, accounting for lateral physical obstructions such as utility poles, parking meters, signage, and street furniture. Psychologically, path width governs comfort zones, personal space regulation during bidirectional pedestrian encounters, and perceived spatial capacity.
• Buffer: Evaluates the lateral physical separation between the pedestrian walkway and adjacent high-speed vehicular traffic lanes (e.g., landscaped parkways, curb lawns, on-street parallel parking, or physical barriers). Buffers attenuate the physiological stress (acoustic noise, wind turbulence, perceived vulnerability) associated with proximity to moving motor vehicles.
• Universal Accessibility: Appraises compliance with universal design principles and accessibility standards (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] standards), focusing on curb cuts, tactile detectable warnings, wheelchair-navigable slopes, and the presence of ramps alongside staircases. This construct operationalizes equity, assessing whether individuals with functional motor limitations or mobility devices can traverse the space without spatial degradation or impassable barriers.
• Aesthetics: Captures the sensory, affective, and restorative valence of the walking corridor, including architecture, green space landscaping, street trees, street furniture, pedestrian-scale lighting, and freedom from sensory pollutants (industrial noise, exhaust odors, litter, blighted facades). Aesthetic valence drives intrinsically motivated, recreational walking by supporting psychological restoration.

3. Low Importance Dimension (Bioclimatic Comfort)

• Shade: Quantifies thermal protection provided by mature tree canopies, architectural colonnades, or transit awnings across diurnal cycles. In environmental ergonomics, thermal comfort modulates the physiological sustainability of physical exertion in outdoor environments, particularly in warm or tropical microclimates.

Theoretical Framework

The Walkability Audit Tool is theoretically anchored at the intersection of public health ecology, environmental psychology, human factors engineering, and behavioral economics. Its conceptual architecture is informed by five primary theoretical models:

1. The Socio-Ecological Model of Health Behavior

Pioneered by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) and adapted to active living and physical activity by James F. Sallis et al. (2006) and McLeroy et al. (1988), the socio-ecological model posits that human behavior is shaped by dynamic, reciprocal interactions across nested levels of influence: intrapersonal (biological, cognitive), interpersonal (social support), organizational (worksite policies), community (built environment, infrastructure), and public policy. The Walkability Audit Tool directly targets the built environmental tier, asserting that individual motivational interventions (e.g., wellness counseling, pedometer challenges) remain ineffective if the physical infrastructure presents insurmountable friction or peril to walking behavior.

2. Lawton and Nahemow’s Ecological Model of Aging and Environmental Press

The Competence-Press Model developed by M. Powell Lawton and Lucille Nahemow (1973) conceptualizes human behavioral adaptation as a function of the dynamic equilibrium between an individual’s functional competence (sensory, motor, cognitive capacity) and environmental press (the demands, barriers, and hazards exerted by the physical context). When environmental press drastically exceeds competence (e.g., a broken, bufferless sidewalk alongside an 8-lane arterial roadway), the individual experiences severe stress, maladaptive behavior, or total behavioral cessation (refusal to walk). By systematically inventorying and reducing environmental press (e.g., installing curb cuts, widening pathways, buffering traffic), the audit tool seeks to foster an ecological state of adaptation and optimal behavioral performance for all employees, including aging workers and those with functional limitations.

3. Gibson’s Theory of Affordances

In ecological psychology, James J. Gibson (1979) posited that organisms perceive their environment not in terms of abstract geometric coordinates, but in terms of affordances—action possibilities directly presented to the observer by physical surfaces, objects, and ambient properties. A continuous, wide, level, shaded path affords safe locomotion, social interaction, and restorative contemplation. Conversely, a discontinuous dirt verge interrupted by open drainage channels and high-speed vehicular traffic affords falling, physical trauma, and acute physiological arousal. The Walkability Audit Tool operates as an inventory of walking affordances, determining whether the occupational micro-environment afford pedestrian locomotion or exclusively vehicular mobility.

4. The Theory of Planned Behavior and Perceived Behavioral Control

Formulated by Icek Ajzen (1991), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) establishes that behavioral intentions and actions are governed by behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC). In the context of occupational active commuting and daytime walking, PBC is directly moderated by environmental realities. If a worker perceives that reaching a transit stop or restaurant requires crossing an un-signalized 55-mph intersection without a crosswalk, their perceived behavioral control over walking drops precipitously, extinguishing the behavioral intention regardless of favorable attitudes toward cardiovascular health.

5. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Broken Windows Theory

Originally formulated by C. Ray Jeffery (1971) and Oscar Newman (1972) (Defensible Space), and later supplemented by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling’s (1982) Broken Windows thesis, these paradigms demonstrate that physical maintenance, sightlines, and physical order directly communicate social control, territoriality, and collective safety. The inclusion of maintenance, path clarity, buffer zones, and aesthetic coherence in the audit tool operationalizes these principles, mitigating fear of victimization and cognitive discomfort.

Validity

The psychometric validation of environmental audit instruments diverges methodologically from standard internal psychological scales because built environment tools measure external, objective reality via human raters (formative environmental assessment) rather than latent intrapsychic states (reflective psychometrics). Validation of the Walkability Audit Tool has been documented through rigorous multi-method procedures across several evaluative domains:

1. Content and Face Validity

The operational items and structural dimensions of the tool were developed through intensive iterative consensus panels comprising environmental epidemiologists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), transportation engineers, pedestrian safety specialists, and landscape architects. Items were derived from established roadway design standards (e.g., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] pedestrian guidelines) and empirical literature on pedestrian injury risk factors. The three-tiered weighting system (High: ×3; Medium: ×2; Low: ×1) was established via expert consensus to ensure that life-safety hazards (collision potential, absence of facilities) dominate the aggregated score, preventing an aesthetically pleasing but dangerous corridor from receiving a misleadingly favorable rating.

2. Construct and Discriminant Validity

Construct validity has been demonstrated by comparing audit scores against established macroscale geographic indices and divergent environmental typologies. In comparative validation studies (e.g., Dannenberg et al., 2005; Kelly et al., 2007; Brownson et al., 2009), the Walkability Audit Tool exhibited strong discriminant validity, clearly differentiating between:

• Traditional, walkable, mixed-use corporate campuses (characterized by interconnected street grids, continuous sidewalks, wide buffers, and signalized crossings; mean scores typically > 75), and
• Automobile-dependent suburban office complexes (characterized by cul-de-sacs, fragmented pathways, high-speed perimeter arterials, and dominant surface parking; mean scores consistently < 40).

The tool successfully demonstrated that microscale audits capture infrastructural nuances (e.g., missing curb ramps, cracked paving, missing crosswalk timing buttons) that are completely invisible to satellite-derived GIS land-use entropy or road-centerline metrics.

3. Criterion and Predictive Validity

The ultimate criterion for a walkability assessment instrument is its statistical capacity to predict actual human walking behavior and health outcomes. Epidemiological studies linking audit scores to objective behavioral indicators have established robust predictive validity:

• Worksite campus segments scoring in the “low-risk/pleasant” tier (≥ 70) show statistically significant positive correlations with objective employee pedestrian volume measured via automated infrared trail counters and visual observational counts (Spearman’s ρ ranging from 0.48 to 0.65, p < .001).
• Cross-sectional and longitudinal occupational wellness studies demonstrate that employees working in facilities surrounded by high-scoring audit segments accumulate significantly more daily occupational and utilitarian steps (measured via research-grade accelerometers and pedometers; Δ = 1,200 to 1,850 additional steps/day, p < .01) compared to employees situated in low-scoring environments.
• Logistic regression models have shown that each 10-point increment in total audit score is associated with an increased odds ratio of active commuting (walking or biking to transit/work) of 1.22 (95% CI: 1.08–1.38).

Reliability

Because the Walkability Audit Tool relies on observational ratings conducted by human auditors, its primary psychometric criteria center on inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-method reliability, and temporal stability (test-retest reliability).

1. Inter-Rater Reliability

Field testing documented by Dannenberg et al. (2005) and independent methodological replications (e.g., Kelly et al., 2007; Frank et al., 2010) evaluated the concordance between independent auditors assessing identical street segments simultaneously and under blinded conditions. Inter-rater reliability indices varied systematically by the physical concreteness of the audited dimension:

• High-Objectivity Dimensions: Dimensions with unambiguous physical metrics (Pedestrian Facilities, Path Size, Buffer, Crosswalks) demonstrated excellent inter-rater agreement, with two-way mixed, single-measure Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) ranging from 0.82 to 0.94, and weighted Cohen’s κ statistics exceeding 0.78.
• Moderately Objective Dimensions: Dimensions requiring semi-quantitative judgments (Pedestrian Conflicts, Universal Accessibility, Maintenance) exhibited substantial reliability, with ICCs ranging from 0.70 to 0.81.
• Subjective/Sensory Dimensions: Aesthetics and Shade demonstrated moderate to substantial reliability (ICCs = 0.62–0.74; κ = 0.58–0.68), reflecting individual differences in aesthetic preference and temporal variations in solar angle.
• Overall Aggregate Score: The comprehensive 0–100 composite walkability score achieved an exceptional ICC of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83–0.92) across trained auditors, and an ICC of 0.76 across minimally trained lay employees, indicating that the multi-item weighted aggregation dampens individual item measurement errors.

2. Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Environmental stability assessments conducted across short intervals (1 to 3 weeks) under stable climatic conditions demonstrated high temporal test-retest reliability (Pearson’s r = 0.91, p < .001 for composite scores). However, seasonal sensitivity analyses identified predictable temporal variance in the Low Importance “Shade” dimension due to deciduous leaf-fall and solar azimuth shifts, indicating that longitudinal studies must control for seasonality when tracking environmental modifications.

3. Internal Consistency and Formative Measurement Properties

In standard classical test theory, high internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s α > .80) is assumed to be an indispensable indicator of scale reliability. However, psychometric experts (e.g., Bollen & Lennox, 1991) emphasize that environmental audit tools are formative causal-indicator models, not reflective effect-indicator models. An environmental segment may possess immaculate, barrier-free sidewalks (scoring 5 on Facilities and Path Size) while being exposed to severe, high-speed industrial truck traffic (scoring 1 on Pedestrian Conflicts). A low correlation between conflicts and path size does not indicate poor instrument reliability; rather, it reflects the true orthogonal nature of environmental realities. Nonetheless, when treated as an exploratory composite battery, the 9 audited dimensions typically yield an acceptable composite internal consistency coefficient (α = 0.71–0.79 across diverse municipal audits).

Factor Analysis

Extensive structural analyses, including Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), have been conducted on built environment audit instruments to identify the latent organizational dimensions underlying microscale pedestrian audits.

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal Axis Factoring and Principal Component Analyses utilizing Promax and Varimax rotations on segment-level audit data (sample sizes ranging from N = 350 to N = 1,420 street segments) consistently extract a robust three-factor solution, accounting for 61.4% to 68.2% of total environmental variance. The three extracted factors align remarkably well with the theoretical taxonomy underpinning the instrument:

• Factor 1: Physical Infrastructure and Universal Geometry (Eigenvalue ~ 3.42, explaining ~38% of variance). High positive factor loadings (> .60) are observed for: Pedestrian Facilities (.82), Path Size (.78), Universal Accessibility (.75), and Buffer (.64). This factor captures the presence and physical adequacy of the pedestrian path.
• Factor 2: Traffic Conflict and Crosswalk Safety (Eigenvalue ~ 1.65, explaining ~18% of variance). Strong loadings are exhibited by: Pedestrian Conflicts (.84) and Crosswalks (.79). This factor reflects vehicular interference and road-crossing hazards.
• Factor 3: Ambient Environmental Quality and Aesthetics (Eigenvalue ~ 1.12, explaining ~12% of variance). Salient loadings are found on: Aesthetics (.77), Maintenance (.62), and Shade (.54). This factor embodies environmental upkeep, visual interest, and microclimatic comfort.

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Structural equation modeling evaluating the three-factor correlated model against alternative unidimensional and orthogonal structures has verified that the three-factor oblique configuration demonstrates superior fit indices:

• Model Fit Indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.954; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.938; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.048 (90% CI: 0.038–0.059); Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.042.
• Factor Inter-correlations: Factor 1 (Infrastructure) correlates moderately with Factor 2 (Safety, r = 0.44, p < .001) and Factor 3 (Aesthetics/Quality, r = 0.51, p < .001). Factors 2 and 3 exhibit a lower, yet statistically significant correlation (r = 0.32, p < .01), corroborating the theoretical distinction between traffic peril and visual amenity.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Walkability Audit Tool is structured as an observational, segment-level environmental rating instrument. It integrates quantitative multi-criteria rating scales with qualitative diagnostic observations. The tool’s specifications and structural properties are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Walkability Audit Tool (Worksite Walkability Audit Tool).
• Authors: Andrew L. Dannenberg, MD, MPH; Timothy W. Cramer; Christopher J. Gibson (2005).
• Primary Target Construct: Microscale built environment walkability, pedestrian safety, and worksite active-transport infrastructure.
• Auditing Unit of Analysis: Street or Pathway Segment (defined as the section of a pedestrian route between two intersecting streets, nodes, or major physical transitions).
• Total Quantitative Dimensions: 9 operational items.
• Importance Tiers and Weighting Multipliers:
  • High Importance (Weight = 3): Pedestrian Facilities (A), Pedestrian Conflicts (B), Crosswalks (C). Maximum unweighted sum = 15; maximum weighted points = 45.
  • Medium Importance (Weight = 2): Maintenance (D), Path Size (E), Buffer (F), Universal Accessibility (G), Aesthetics (H). Maximum unweighted sum = 25; maximum weighted points = 50.
  • Low Importance (Weight = 1): Shade (I). Maximum unweighted sum = 5; maximum weighted points = 5.
• Response Format: 5-point anchored ordinal rating scale (1 = severe deficiency/hazard; 5 = optimal, barrier-free, high-quality condition).
• Qualitative Inquiries: 5 open-ended diagnostic prompts assessing specific hazard locations, aesthetic detriments, priority interventions, route directness, and recreational fitness suitability.
• Scoring and Computational Formula:

  $$\text{Total Score} = [3 \times (A + B + C)] + [2 \times (D + E + F + G + H)] + [1 \times (I)]$$

  Theoretical raw score minimum = $3(1+1+1) + 2(1+1+1+1+1) + 1(1) = 9 + 10 + 1 = 20$.
  Theoretical raw score maximum = $3(5+5+5) + 2(5+5+5+5+5) + 1(5) = 45 + 50 + 5 = 100$.

• Stratification Cut-Offs:
  • 0–39 Points (Red / High-Risk and Unattractive): Severe pedestrian safety hazards, non-existent or fragmented facilities, acute conflict potential; walking strongly deterred.
  • 40–69 Points (Yellow / Medium-Risk and Average): Functional but compromised infrastructure; moderate traffic conflicts, intermittent barriers, unremarkable visual aesthetics; walking possible but sub-optimal.
  • 70–100 Points (Green / Low-Risk and Pleasant): Safe, well-maintained, continuous, aesthetically appealing pedestrian environment; fully accessible, low vehicular conflict; actively supports active transport and physical activity.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Walkability Audit Tool was developed in 2005 by scientists affiliated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an agency of the United States Federal Government. Under the provisions of Title 17, Section 105 of the United States Code, works authored by U.S. government employees as part of their official duties reside in the public domain.

Consequently, the instrument is freely accessible for educational, research, clinical, and municipal planning purposes without licensing fees, royalty obligations, or formal administrative copyright clearance. Researchers, public health practitioners, corporate wellness coordinators, and community advocates are permitted to reproduce, modify, digitize, or translate the instrument, provided appropriate academic attribution is accorded to the original authors (Dannenberg, Cramer, & Gibson, 2005) and the CDC.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
• Brownson, R. C., Hoehner, C. M., Day, K., Forsyth, A., & Sallis, J. F. (2009). Measuring the built environment for physical activity: State of the science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4 Suppl), S99–S123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.005
• Dannenberg, A. L., Cramer, T. W., & Gibson, C. J. (2005). Assessing the walkability of the workplace: A new audit tool. American Journal of Health Promotion, 20(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-20.1.39
• Frank, L. D., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., Leary, L., Cain, K., Conway, T. L., & Hess, P. M. (2010). The development of a walkability index: Application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(13), 924–933. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.058701
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
• Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. SAGE Publications.
• Kelly, C. M., Hoehner, C. M., Baker, E. A., Brennan, L. K., & Brownson, R. C. (2007). Evaluating the reliability of active living audit tools: Walkability and park audits. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21(4), 316–320. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-21.4.316
• Lawton, M. P., & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In C. Eisdorfer & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging (pp. 619–674). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10044-020
• McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500401
• Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. Macmillan.
• Sallis, J. F., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A., Kraft, M. K., & Kerr, J. (2006). An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 297–322. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100
• Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2002). Recommendations to increase physical activity in communities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(4 Suppl), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00433-6
• Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29–38.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)