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.

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

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.