Examining aspects of the built environment: an evaluation of a community walking map project.
Nykiforuk, Candace I.J. ; Nieuwendyk, Laura M. ; Mitha, Shaesta 等
Concern about obesity rates in Canada has resulted in various
community-based health promotion interventions to increase physical
activity. (1-3) Despite growing evidence of the benefits of physical
activity in preventing and controlling chronic diseases,3 most Canadian
adults are not sufficiently active to reap the health benefits of a
physically active lifestyle. (4,5)
Walking is the most frequent and preferred form of physical
activity across both sexes and different ages and income levels. (6,7)
Walking is accessible, as it requires no special skills or equipment, is
affordable and can be made easily routine, particularly if done for
active transportation. (8) Thus, the quality of walking routes and the
presence, type and convenience of destinations in a community affect how
much people walk. (6) Clearly, identification of safe and convenient
walking routes that enable residents to reach destinations is crucial to
promote walking for physical activity.
Community-based interventions that target walking for recreation or
active transportation support increased physical activity. (9) They
engage stakeholders and are tailored to consider community
characteristics and needs with the goal of reducing the
population's risk of disease. (10) Walking trails are useful
community-based physical activity interventions, but despite the
apparent beneficial effects, may be under-used once implemented. (11)
In the current project, community consultation revealed that
development of a map of local walking routes was more viable and
economically feasible than developing walking trails. This paper will
discuss the evaluation of a walking map developed for one geo graphic
community in the City of Edmonton (COE), Alberta. The evaluation sought
to identify whether the map encouraged walking among residents and to
assess its value as a tool for informing them about community assets and
destinations.
METHODS
Background
Researchers collaborated with the COE's Walkable Edmonton
initiative for the evaluation. Community walking maps provide routes
throughout the designated area while guiding residents to specific
destinations or points of interest. The maps produced as part of the
"Communities on Foot" Walking Map Series
(http://www.edmonton.ca/community-walking-maps.aspx) aim to: 1)
encourage citizens of all ages to partake in active transportation,
particularly walking; 2) encourage community members to walk and explore
their neigh bourhoods, parks, trails and business districts; and 3)
foster community engagement in building a walkable city.12 The walking
maps are created by residents for residents: residents are recruited to
participate in map production and are given the task of identifying key
walking routes and destinations within their community.
Setting
The evaluation focused on a walking map recently prepared for a
community comprising eight contiguous neighbourhoods in inner-city
Edmonton. This community is proximal to the downtown core and contains
some of the city's oldest neighbourhoods. The area includes a range
of housing styles, from small bungalows to larger two-storey homes, and
a variety of business districts. This community has a diverse population
with average incomes significantly lower (by about 35%) than the total
average income of the municipality. (13) The community walking map
depicts 10 sample walking routes ranging in length from 1.4 to 5.0 km
with at least one route through each neighbourhood. Historical
information about each neighbourhood is provided, and key community
locations and amenities are indicated, including community centres,
schools, health centres, libraries, bus and light rail transit stations
and stops, grocery stores, bakeries, hotels and recreational facilities.
All information is superimposed onto an aerial photograph of the area,
which also shows building footprints and road layouts (map can be viewed
at http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/AvenueCommunitiesWalkingMap.pdf).
Design
In July 2010, the Canada Post Unaddressed Admail System, which
delivers mail through generic postal codes, was used to distribute
11,994 walking maps to all households (houses and apartments) in the
mapped area. After this mail-out, a cross-sectional, post-test only
survey was used to collect information on the effectiveness of the maps
in encouraging walking in the community. The 10-minute survey was
available online through a link from the COE website. A variety of
methods were used to recruit the area's adult population while
retaining opportunities for minority or harder-to-reach populations to
participate.
Recruitment methods included a hot-link button on the COE website,
manned poster displays at key locations and distribution of two separate
reminder postcards (including information about the map, survey and
locations with free internet access) to all households. To gather
feedback from residents who did not receive a copy of the map, student
volunteers were present at key locations in the community (e.g.,
library, grocery store, ethnic centre) during the month of October 2010
to hand out maps and postcards to encourage survey participation. Given
the low-income status of the neighbourhood, internet access to complete
the survey was of significant concern. A toll-free number was
established so that those without internet access could complete the
survey over the telephone with a member of the research team. Discussion
with community partners revealed that incentives should be provided to
encourage residents to complete the survey. To meet this need, an early
bird draw prize ($100 gift certificate to a local grocery store) and
grand prize (mountain bike and helmet valued at $500) were provided.
Ethical clearance for the project was received from the Health
Research Ethics Board (Panel B), University of Alberta.
Sample
Respondents were recruited from the eight contiguous neighbourhoods
represented on the map and from surrounding neighbourhoods. A total of
155 people, aged 18 years or older, participated (i.e., 1% of households
in the map area).
Measures
Survey questions were developed in collaboration with Walkable
Edmonton and other community partners involved in the map production to
ensure that the findings would be relevant for program providers. New
questions were developed to meet community needs, as a literature review
revealed no previous indicators reported from similar evaluations.
Survey questions were simply stated and attempted to measure awareness
of the map, participation in map development, short-term behaviour
change, community impact and suggestions for map improvements. A
separate set of questions was developed for respondents who did not
receive a copy of the map. Table 1 summarizes the survey questions.
Respondents were asked to identify which neighbourhood they resided
in and whether they had a copy of the map. While the maps were delivered
to every household in the community, respondents might not have received
one or might have discarded it. Respondents who did not have a copy of
the map were directed to a shorter version of the survey that asked
whether they would find the map useful, had ideas on the best way to
share it with the community, and would like to receive a copy of it;
those who did were directed to Walkable Edmonton. Respondent demographic
information (age, household income and number of individuals residing in
the household) was collected in both versions to facilitate
characterization of respondents and groups not reached through the
evaluation design.
Analysis
Survey data were analyzed using SPSS v.18.0. Descriptive statistics
and frequencies were calculated.
RESULTS
Of the 155 respondents, 57.4% had a copy of the walking map, 38.7%
did not, and 3.9% opted not to complete the survey past the first
question and were excluded from further analysis. Of the resulting 149
respondents, there were more females (69.1%) than males (28.9%), and a
range of income brackets was represented. The majority of respondents
(66.4%) lived in the map area, and 24.8% were from surrounding
neighbourhoods. Only four respondents had participated in the
development of the map. Table 2 provides the demographic profile of
respondents.
Table 3 summarizes survey responses for the 89 respondents who had
a walking map. Most of those respondents (60.7%) received their maps
through the mail, and 18.0% obtained a copy from community destinations.
In total, 48.3% had tried a walking route identified on the map, with
variation in the number of routes tried. Of the 43.8% of respondents who
used the maps to discover new places in the community, 56.4% visited one
to two locations, and 38.4% visited multiple locations.
The majority of respondents (76.4%) agreed that the routes and
destinations on the map encouraged them to walk more in the community,
their rationales including the desire to: get more exercise (66.0%);
become familiarized with the community (66.2%); get out and enjoy the
community (58.8%); visit places in the community (e.g., library or
coffee shop) (50.0%); and learn about the community's history
(32.4%) (Table 3). Overall, respondents stated that, as a result of
having the map, they would walk more often to get to destinations
(64.0%) and for physical activity or exercise (55.1%). Finally, 91.0%
stated that they found the map useful as it identified walking routes
(74.1%) and places to go in the community (70.4%).
Table 4 summarizes survey data for respondents who did not have a
map, of whom 56.7% were not aware that a walking map had been created
for their community. All of these respondents expressed interest in
obtaining the map. Respondents suggested sharing the map through
community locations (e.g., coffee shop, library or grocery store)
(73.5%); postal mail (70.6%); online (52.9%); and E-mail (32.4%).
Overall, 95% of these respondents stated that they would use a community
walking map.
DISCUSSION
This community-research partnership was an ideal opportunity to
better understand residents' perceptions of a community walking
map. The evaluation assessed whether the map's routes and
destinations adequately met residents' needs and whether the map
was being utilized as intended. Further, the survey provided insight on
the reach of the map: the results describe perceptions from respondents
in eligible households who did and did not receive the map. While
findings were specific to this community, a general understanding of
perceptions about walking maps can help researchers and community
stakeholders develop future walking map initiatives.
Evaluation findings indicated that the postal mail-out was the most
preferred means to distribute the maps, despite initial partner concerns
that maps would be discarded (and despite the low response rates we
experienced with this approach). This finding is congruent with similar
programs, in which direct communication was respondents' preferred
method of contact. (14) Yet, as a significant proportion of respondents
did not have the map, concerted efforts are needed to ensure that the
map is prominent among the plethora of advertisements received in the
mail. The map also reached people from outside the map area, likely
because of its availability at various community destinations and
online. Thus, a walking map highlighting routes, destinations and
interesting community information may be a useful way to attract
visitors to the community.
Approximately half of respondents who had the map attempted one or
more walking routes. Thus, short-term behaviour change was fostered,
especially among those who reported that the map's routes and
destinations encouraged them to walk more. While the evaluation did not
assess previous walking behaviours, respondents expressed an inclination
to walk more because they now had the map. This is consistent with
previous studies' findings that individuals given maps of walking
routes were twice as likely as controls to walk to work during a
six-month follow-up. (15) One study has even indicated that short-term
behaviour change related to increased walking was consistent with
results at 10-year follow-up. (16) Given this potential, future research
should explore the impact of walking interventions on long-term
behaviour change. (17)
The participatory nature of this evaluation helped foster resident
engagement and promote community development through stake holder
involvement in the process. The exploration of residents'
perceptions of the map revealed that community activity was enhanced in
these neighbourhoods. This walking map demonstrated the potential to
encourage residents to come out into the community, thereby creating
opportunities for increased interaction. Respondents became more aware
of walking for physical activity and of safe walking routes. Thus, the
map was a powerful tool that helped respondents recognize existing
opportunities by familiarizing them with their community and
facilitating interaction with other community members. (18)
The majority of respondents indicated that the map was useful
because of the walking routes, but only half had attempted walking a
route. Respondents had received the map a few weeks before the survey,
so may not yet have had time to try the routes. Although a small
percentage found the map not useful, their responses to open-ended
survey questions indicated that this was because of their perceptions of
the community rather than of the map itself (e.g., respondents noted
that it was unsafe to walk in the community, did not want to visit
places in the community). Some of the walking routes did intersect with
undesirable areas of this inner-city community, however, mobilizing
residents to walk through these areas could increase street presence and
informal monitoring. Pedestrian design enhancements (e.g.,
pedestrian-activated crossing signals) could also make walking the
routes a more pleasant and a safer form of recreation or transportation.
(19)
Respondents with a map provided feedback on whether the map was of
interest/use to community members. Yet, about one third of respondents
did not receive the map, and more than half of these respondents were
not aware the map existed. Examination of map dissemination strategies
offered insight into how to address this situation. Respondents
indicated that postal mail was the best way to distribute the maps,
followed by having them available at community locations and online.
Thus, a combination of dissemination methods should be considered as
viable means to provide access to the walking map, including use of
alternative methods (e.g., posters or signs, community board postings)
to increase the visibility of and community resonance with the
initiative. (14)
Respondents' high level of interest in obtaining and using the
walking map suggests that they are open to walking. Survey findings
demonstrate that residents perceive the walking map to be a valuable
information tool about options available in the community, and the
depiction of various walking routes to be appealing. Communities should
be enabled to develop walking maps as a means to foster community
engagement, increase physical activity and encourage active
transportation.
Strengths and limitations
Use of a community-university partnership approach strengthened
this evaluation. Collaboration with key stakeholders was crucial to
obtain project acceptance and facilitate evidence-gathering that would
be meaningful for community action. (14,20) Here, evaluation findings
were used by community partners in planning future initiatives.
The examination of perceptions of respondents with and without a
copy of the map was advantageous as it allowed the team to gain a
broader understanding of the overall value placed on the map by
residents. Both groups valued the map as a tool to increase their
knowledge of walking routes and local community destinations.
Ultimately, this information is useful for public health practitioners,
community leaders and government officials when forming physical
activity, active transportation or community development initiatives.
While designed to reach as many potential respondents as possible
with limited resources, this evaluation was limited by its
cross-sectional, post-test-only survey design. The resultant data
provided only a small snapshot of information. The survey relied on
self-reported data and, to fit within the grant funding period, was
available online for only a limited time (3.5 months), which began
immediately after the map had been distributed. This may not have been
an adequate amount of time to assess the impacts of the map on
residents. Limited time and passive recruitment through postal mail
along with the low socio-economic status of the area were likely the
primary contributors to the very low response rate to the survey. It may
be that those who responded did so because of a special interest in
walking, walking maps or their neighbourhood.
Survey participation was limited to adults aged 18 and older, but
the walking map was available to people of all ages. Consequently, a
small sample and large proportion of female respondents limited the
representativeness and generalizability of the findings. Given the short
funding period for this program, a more extensive evaluation was not
possible to discover resident perceptions and detect long-term behaviour
change. Despite the shortcomings of the survey design, the approach was
necessary to generate feedback on resident perceptions of the map in
order to inform other COE map developments planned for the immediate
future.
Future implications for research, practice and policy
Locally, future evaluation should consider the entire series of COE
walking maps available to better understand the impacts of walking maps
in different communities within the municipality over time. The ability
to undertake such a wide-scale evaluation would require additional
resources and support from government officials. More broadly, walking
map evaluations should follow a pre-post survey design with multiple
follow-ups to assess utilization as well as short- and long-term
behaviour change. Gathering data on measured physical activity levels
could enhance the proposed links between walking maps and behaviour.
Future research would benefit from multiple recruitment strategies as
well as integration of qualitative methods (e.g., focus groups) to
explore utilization issues in greater detail.
There is little research examining walking maps as an intervention
tool to promote physical activity and increase community awareness.
Findings from this evaluation suggest that, when developing
interventions to promote walking, practitioners should design a tool
that: provides residents with a tangible item outlining safe walking
routes; identifies pedestrian supports (e.g., crosswalk availability);
demarcates key community destinations; and considers specific community
needs and characteristics (e.g., multicultural destinations). This
evaluation provides preliminary evidence that walking maps are valued by
residents and are perceived as an effective means to increase local
walking.
Community-based initiatives like walking maps must be supported by
healthy public policy. For example, future health promotion
interventions should consider urban planning or transportation policies
as a means to support the development of walking-friendly environments.
Finally, collaboration with professionals from various disciplines and
involvement of key community partners (including residents) are also
essential to map development and successful walking initiatives.
CONCLUSION
Walking is a form of physical activity accessible to individuals of
all ages and in all types of built environments. Community walking maps
are a valuable intervention to foster change in walking behaviours by
informing individuals about walking route options and motivating them to
explore their communities. By recognizing the potential of community
walking maps, policy-makers and practitioners can work towards
implementing this intervention to enhance citizen engagement and promote
walking for recreation and transportation in their communities.
Acknowledgements: Funding for this project was provided by the
Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada in partnership with the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research. I. Hosler is a community partner who was
employed by the walking map initiative.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
REFERENCES
(1.) Burke NM, Chomitz VR, Rioles NA, Winslow SP, Brukilacchio LB,
Baker JC. The path to active living: Physical activity through community
design in Somerville, Massachusetts. Am J Prev Med 2009;37(6 Suppl
2):S386-94.
(2.) van Sluijs EM, McMinn AM, Griffin SJ. Effectiveness of
interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents:
Systematic review of controlled trials. BMJ 2007;335(7622):703.
(3.) Warburton DE, Nicol CW, Bredin SS. Health benefits of physical
activity: The evidence. CMAJ2006;174(6):801-9.
(4.) Vanasse A, Demers M, Hemiari A, Courteau J. Obesity in Canada:
Where and how many? Int J Obes (Lond) 2006;30(4):677-83.
(5.) Katzmarzyk PT, Gledhill N, Shephard RJ. The economic burden of
physical inactivity in Canada. CMAJ2000;163(11):1435-40.
(6.) Moudon AV, Lee C, Cheadle AD, Garvin C, Rd DB, Schmid TL,
Weathers RD. Attributes of environments supporting walking. Am J Health
Promot 2007;21(5):448-59.
(7.) Hooker SP, Cirill LA, Wicks L. Walkable neighbourhoods for
seniors: The Alameda County experience. J Appl Gerontol
2006;26(2):157-81.
(8.) Dannenberg AL, Cramer TW, Gibson CJ. Assessing the walkability
of the workplace: A new audit tool. Am J Health Promot 2005;20(1):39-44.
(9.) Moudon AV, Lee C. Walking and bicycling: An evaluation of
environmental audit instruments. Am J Health Promot 2003;18(1):21-37.
(10.) McLeroy KR, Norton BL, Kegler MC, Burdine JN, Sumaya CV.
Communitybased interventions. Am J Public Health 2003;93(4):529-33.
(11.) Brownson RC, Baker EA, Boyd RL, Caito NM, Duggan K, Housemann
RA, et al. A community-based approach to promoting walking in rural
areas. Am J Prev Med 2004;27(1):28-34.
(12.) Walkable Edmonton. First Steps: Walkable Edmonton Committee
2008 Annual Report, 2008. Available at:
http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/WalkableEdmontonAnnualReport2008.pdf (Accessed October 8, 2010).
(13.) City of Edmonton. Neighbourhood Profiles, 2010. Available at:
http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/neighbourhoods/ (Accessed October
25, 2010).
(14.) Cooper C. Successfully changing individual travel behavior:
Applying community-based social marketing to travel choice. J
Transportation Research Board 2007;2021(11):89-99.
(15.) Mutrie N, Carney C, Blamey A, Crawford F, Aitchison T,
Whitelaw A. "Walk in to work out": A randomised controlled
trial of a self help intervention to promote active commuting. J
Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56(6):407-12.
(16.) Pereira MA, Kriska AM, Day RD, Cauley JA, LaPorte RE, Kuller
LH. A randomized walking trail in postmenopausal women: Effects on
physical activity and health 10 years later. Arch Intern Med
1998;158:1695-701.
(17.) Williams DM, Matthews CE, Rutt C, Napolitano MA, Marcus BH.
Interventions to increase walking behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2008;40(7 Suppl):S567 73.
(18.) Miller EK, Scofield JL. Slavic Village: Incorporating active
living into community development through partnerships. Am J Prev Med
2009;37(6 Suppl 2):S377-85.
(19.) Pucher J, Dijkstra L. Promoting safe walking and cycling to
improve public health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany. Am J
Public Health 2003;93(9):1509-16.
(20.) Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S. Community-based
participatory research: From the margin to the mainstream. Circulation
2009;119:2633-42.
Candace I.J. Nykiforuk, PhD, [1] Laura M. Nieuwendyk, MSc, [1]
Shaesta Mitha, MPH, [2] Ian Hosler [3]
Author Affiliations
[1.] Centre for Health Promotion Studies, School of Public Health,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
[2.] Health Facility Planning, Regional Municipality of Peel,
Mississauga, ON
[3.] Walkable Edmonton, City of Edmonton Community Services,
Edmonton, AB
Correspondence: Candace I.J. Nykiforuk, Asst. Professor, Centre for
Health Promotion Studies, School of Public Health, University of
Alberta, 3-258 ECHA, 1140587 Ave., Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Tel:
780-492-4109, Fax: 780-492-0364, E-mail: candace.nykiforuk@ualberta.ca
Table 1. Categorized Questions
Focus Area for Evaluation Purpose
Awareness
* Did respondents have a copy of To determine the number of
the walking map? individuals who had a copy of the
map and whether they were aware
that the map had been produced.
* Were respondents aware that a
map had been developed for their
neighbourhood?
Map distribution
* How did people get their copy To determine what tactics were
of the map? effective in the dissemination of
the map and how residents would
like to receive it.
* How would they like to get a
copy of the map in the future?
Short-term change
* Did the map influence behaviour To compare the amount of time the
in the short term? respondents had the map with the
number of routes they tried and to
determine whether people actually
walked the routes.
* Did respondents walk more to
local destinations or for
recreation?
* Did the map actually get
respondents walking (distinction
between exercise and purposeful
walking)?
Long-term change
* Did the map influence behaviour To determine the long-term
change in the long term? behaviour change produced
by the map.
Personal impact
* Did respondents find this To determine whether respondents
product a useful resource? found the map to be a useful tool
in identifying safe walking routes
in their community.
Community impact
* Is this a worthwhile project or To determine the value respondents
resource for the community? placed on the map and whether they
had visited local destinations
shown on the map.
* What other benefits for the
community were associated with
doing this project?
* Have respondents visited local
destinations highlighted
in the map?
Map perception
* What aspects of the map did the To determine what aspects of the
respondents like or dislike? map were viewed as valuable by the
respondents and what they did not
like.
Map improvement
* How could this be a more useful A list of potential map
tool/resource? improvements was provided to
respondents to check all that
apply in terms of the types of
change that would make the map
a more useful tool.
Demographic information
* Demographic information General demographic data were
necessary to obtain information on
the types of individual who
responded.
Table 2. Profile of Survey Respondents
Respondent
Characteristics Total
n (%)
Male 43 (28.9)
Female 103 (69.1)
Prefer not to answer 3 (2.0)
Total 149 (100.0)
Age 18-34 34 (22.8)
35-54 75 (50.3)
55+ 36 (24.2)
Prefer not to answer 4 (2.7)
Total 149 (100.0)
Household Less than $23,000 14 (9.4)
income (N=149) $24,000-$60,000 51 (34.2)
More than $60,000 51 (34.2)
Don't know 1 (0.7)
Prefer not to answer 31 (20.8)
Missing 1 (0.7)
Total 149 (100.0)
Neighbourhood From walk map area 99 (66.4)
(N=149) Outside walk map area 37 (24.8)
Don't know 4 (2.7)
Missing 9 (6.0)
Total 149 (100.0)
Respondent
Characteristics Walking Map Walking Map
(YES) n (%) (NO) n (%)
31 (34.8) 12 (20.0)
57 (64.0) 46 (76.7)
1 (1.1) 2 (3.3)
89 (100.0) 60 (100.0)
Age 22 (24.7) 12 (20.0)
48 (53.9) 27 (45.0)
18 (20.2) 18 (30.0)
1 (1.1) 3 (5.0)
89 (100.0) 60 (100.0)
Household 7 (7.9) 7 (11.7)
income (N=149) 34 (38.2) 17 (28.3)
28 (31.5) 23 (38.3)
1 (1.1) -
18 (20.2) 13 (21.7)
1 (1.1) -
89 (100.0) 60 (100.0)
Neighbourhood 68 (76.3) 31 (51.6)
(N=149) 18 (20.2) 19 (31.6)
1 (1.1) 3 (5.0)
2 (2.2) 7 (11.7)
89 (100.0) 60 (100.0)
Table 3. Summary of Survey Responses From Those
Respondents Who Had a Map
Question Total n (%)
How did you get your copy of your
community walking map?
In the mail 54 (60.7)
From a friend or family member 5 (5.6)
From a place in my community 16 (18.0)
(e.g., library)
Other (e.g., internet) 10 (11.2)
Missing 4 (4.5)
Total 89 (100.0)
Have you tried any of the walking
routes identified?
Yes 43 (48.3)
No 46 (51.7)
Total 89 (100.0)
How many of the routes have you used in the maps?
1 15 (34.9)
2 10 (23.3)
3 12 (27.9)
4 1 (2.3)
5 3 (7.0)
Don't know 2 (4.7)
Total 43 (100.0)
Have you used the maps to discover new places to
visit in your community (e.g., the library, parks
or coffee shops)?
Yes 39 (43.8)
No 50 (56.2)
Total 89 (100.0)
How many of the community destinations have you
visited since getting the map?
1 to 2 locations 22 (56.4)
3 to 4 locations 10 (25.6)
5 to 6 locations 3 (7.7)
6 to 10 locations 2 (5.1)
Don't know 2 (5.1)
Total 39 (100.0)
Have the routes and destinations on the map
encouraged you to walk more in your community?
Yes 68 (76.4)
No 21 (23.6)
Total 89 (100.0)
How have the maps encouraged you to walk more?
(check all that apply)
To visit places in my community 34 (50.0)
(e.g., library or coffee shop)
To get more exercise 45 (66.2)
To get out and enjoy my community 40 (58.8)
To learn about the history of 22 (32.4)
my community
To become familiarized with 45 (66.2)
my community
To get to know other members in 9 (13.2)
my community
Other 5 (7.4)
Do you think that you will walk more often
to get to destinations because you have the map?
Yes 57 (64.0)
No 31 (34.8)
Missing 1 (1.1)
Total 89 (100)
Do you think you will walk more often for physical
activity or exercise because you have the map?
Yes 49 (55.1)
No 39 (43.8)
Missing 1 (1.1)
Total 89 (100)
Do you find this map useful?
Yes 81 (91.0)
No 8 (9.0)
Total 89 (100)
Yes
Provides places to go in the 57 (70.4)
community
Provides walking routes 60 (74.1)
Other (e.g., length of route is 15 (18.5)
provided, useful for visitors/new
community members, good for
exploring community, used for
cycling routes, and crosswalk
locations provided)
No
Does not provide places I want to y 1 (12.5)
go in the communit
Does not provide me with 2 (25.0)
appropriate walking routes
Other (e.g., unsafe areas 6 (75.0)
to walk, lived in the area for
a while - don't need a map
to walk)
Table 4. Summary of Survey Responses From Those
Respondents Who Did Not Have a Map
Question Total n (%)
Were you aware that a community walking map was created
for your community with routes and key destinations?
Yes 26 (43.3)
No 34 (56.7)
Total 60 (100.0)
Would you like to have a map of your community with walking
routes and interesting destinations
(e.g., coffee shops and parks)
identified?
Yes 34 (56.7)
What would be the best way for us to get the community walking
maps to people in the community? (check all that apply)
Through the mail 24 (70.6)
Have it available at community locations 25 (73.5)
(e.g., coffee shop, library or grocery store)
E-mail 11 (32.4)
Online 18 (52.9)
Other 7 (20.6)
Would you use a community map?
Yes 57 (95.0)
No 3 (5.0)
Total 60 (100.0)
Please tell us why you would not use a community
map with walking routes and destinations?
Not interested in my community 1 (33.3)
Other 1 (33.3)
Missing 1 (33.3)
Total 3 (100.0)