A comparative case study of walking environment in Madrid and Philadelphia using multiple sampling methods and street virtual audits. Issue 3 (1st September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gullón, Pedro; Bilal, Usama; Sánchez, Patricia; Díez, Julia; Lovasi, Gina S.; Franco, Manuel
• Is Part Of: Cities & health. Volume 4:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 336
• Page End: 344
• Publication Date: 2020-09-01
• Subjects: Walkability -- built environment -- cities -- omnidirectional image -- virtual image; 362.12
• DOI: 10.1080/23748834.2020.1715117
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2374-8834

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The objective of this study is to quantify, using virtual audits in Madrid and Philadelphia, cross-city differences in the walking environment and to test whether differences vary by sampling method. We used two sampling methods; first, a contiguous area combining census units (~15.000 population area for each setting) was selected using the Median Neighborhood Index. Median Neighborhood Index is a summary index that averages Euclidean distances of sociodemographic and urban form features, used to select the median neighborhood for a given city. Second, we selected a population-density stratified sampling of the same number of census units as above. M-SPACES audit tool was deployed, using street virtual audits to measure function, safety, aesthetics, and destinations along each street segment. Madrid streets had lower scores for function ( b = −0.29 CI95% −0.55; −0.31) and safety ( b = −0.38 CI95% −0.61; -0.14). Madrid had a greater proportion of streets having at least one walking destination in the street segment (PR = 1.92 95% CI 1.55; 2.39). We did not find a significant difference between Madrid and Philadelphia in aesthetics. We found an interaction between safety and sampling methods. This approach can reveal which elements of the built environment account for between-city differences, key to mass influences that operate at the city level.