Walkability

The walkability indicator measures the ease of walking to common destinations such as retail stores, community services including health care centers, recreation areas, and parks. Walkability is used as a proxy for access to local amenities and retail. Higher scores are better than lower scores because higher mean the neighborhood is more “walkable”.

The Walkability Score

is a measure from the EPA Smart Location Database that was developed specifically for the HCTI project. The EPA Smart Location Database does not have a walkability score for Morris Park, Wenonah, Camden Industrial, Humboldt Industrial Area, and Mid - City Industrial neighborhoods.

 

Walkability is affected by quality of footpaths, sidewalks or other pedestrian rights-of-way, and the conditions of local roads and traffic. Walkability has health, environmental, and economic benefits. Walkable neighborhoods promote physical activity. These neighborhoods often have reduced pollution from greenhouse gas emissions generated by vehicles. Communities designed to be walkable encourage fit and healthy lifestyles, and prevent obesity. Walkability is in the Neighborhood Characteristics domain.

Neighborhoodsort descending Indicator Value Rank
Armatage 41 74
Audubon Park 65 38
Bancroft 58 55
Beltrami 62 44
Bottineau 59 52
Bryant 60 50
Bryn - Mawr 38 77
Calhoun Area Residents Action Group (CARAG) 84 10
Camden Industrial - -
Cedar - Isles - Dean 62 44
Cedar Riverside 83 11
Central 70 25
Cleveland 42 73
Columbia Park 44 71
Como 62 44
Cooper 54 63
Corcoran 69 28
Diamond Lake 38 77
Downtown East 87 7
Downtown West 94 1
East Calhoun (ECCO) 79 17
East Harriet 62 44
East Isles 89 4
East Phillips 78 20
Elliot Park 81 14
Ericsson 57 57
Field 62 44
Folwell 55 60
Fulton 63 41
Hale 57 57
Harrison 60 50
Hawthorne 64 40
Hiawatha 47 69
Holland 68 31
Howe 63 41
Humboldt Industrial Area - -
Jordan 65 38
Keewaydin 59 52
Kenny 39 75
Kenwood 44 71
King Field 67 33
Lind - Bohanon 31 80
Linden Hills 59 52
Logan Park 67 33
Longfellow 74 23
Loring Park 89 4
Lowry Hill 75 22
Lowry Hill East 92 2
Lyndale 79 17
Lynnhurst 56 59
Marcy Holmes 81 14
Marshall Terrace 36 79
McKinley 51 66
Mid - City Industrial - -
Midtown Phillips 86 9
Minnehaha 54 63
Morris Park - -
Near - North 61 49
Nicollet Island - East Bank 90 3
North Loop 83 11
Northeast Park 58 55
Northrop 55 60
Page 55 60
Phillips West 81 14
Powderhorn Park 71 24
Prospect Park - East River Road 67 33
Regina 51 66
Seward 78 20
Sheridan 66 36
Shingle Creek 27 81
St. Anthony East 69 28
St. Anthony West 70 25
Standish 63 41
Steven's Square - Loring Heights 88 6
Sumner - Glenwood (Heritage Park) 70 25
Tangletown 66 36
University of Minnesota 79 17
Ventura Village 83 11
Victory 27 81
Waite Park 39 75
Webber - Camden 45 70
Wenonah - -
West Calhoun 68 31
Whittier 87 7
Willard - Hay 48 68
Windom 54 63
Windom Park 69 28

Key Citations: 1. Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2010; 76:3(2010):265-294.

 

2. Mota J et al. Perceived neighborhood environments and physical activity in adolescents. Preventive Medicine. 2005; 41:834-836.

 

Stretch versions: An alternate approach to avoid using a propriety measure would be for the community to calculate its own walkability measure. Some planning agencies have created local versions using GIS analysis to identify distances between homes and a given set of destinations, weighted according to the frequency with which they are visited by a typical household. These local versions could be created by assessing the area’s job and residential population density, percent of residents within walking distance to diverse/mixed-use areas, availability of sidewalks and bike baths and intersection density per square mile. However, conducting such an analysis would require a parcel-level land use database, which are typically available from the county assessor’s offices, often for a fee. Furthermore, additional processing or data gathering may be necessary to differentiate between multiple types of destinations. Therefore, this approach would probably best be pursued for individual metro areas on a case-by-case basis in collaboration with regional planning agencies.