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

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.