Table 3

Summary of results from longitudinal prospective studies (n=15)

WalkingPhysical activityOther travel behaviourConsistency score*
RecreationTransportOverallTransportTotalCyclingPublic transportDrivingUnweighted +%Weighted +%
Recreation environment
 Parks/green space/recreation facilitiesGiles-Corti (0)Beenackers et al,54 (+,+,0,0)2/5 (40%)0.5/2 (25%)
Neighbourhood design
 Residential/population densityCoogan et al,60 (?)Coogan et al,60 (+);
Knuiman et al,55 (0, 0)
Clark et al,59 (0)Beenackers et al,54 (+,0)Clark et al,59 (0)2/8 (25%)1.5/6 (25%)
 Street connectivityKnuiman et al,55 (+, 0)Wells and Yang,39 (+)Beenackers et al,54 (0,+,0,0,0)3/8 (38%)1.7/3 (57%)
 Land use mix/destinationsHirsch (0)Giles-Corti (+);
Hirsch et al,61 (+);
Knuiman et al,55 (+,+,+,+)
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,28 (+);
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,45(+);
Wasfi (+,+,0)
Wells and Yang,39 (-)Clark et al,59 (+,0,0)Beenackers et al,54 (?, 0,0)
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,28 (0);
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,45 (0)
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,28 (0)Clark et al,59 (0,0,0)
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,28 (0);
11/26 (42%)5/14 (36%)
Transportation environment
 Walking/cycling facilitiesBeenackers et al,54 (+,0,0)1/3 (33%)1/3 (33%)
 Public transport access and servicesKnuiman et al,55 (+,+,+,+)
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,28 (0,0,0);
Clark et al,59 (0,0)Scheinerand Holz-Rau,28 (0,0,0)Scheiner and Holz-Rau,28 (0,0,0);
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,45 (+)
Clark et al,59 (0,0)
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,28 (0,0,0);
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,45 (+)
6/22 (27%)3/9 (33%)
 ParkingScheiner and Holz-Rau,28 (0)Beenackers et al,54 (0)
Scheiner and Holz Rau,28 (0)
Scheiner and Holz-Rau,28 (+)Scheiner and Holz-Rau,28 (+)2/5 (40%)2/5 (40%)
 TrafficBeenackers et al,54 (0)0/1 (0%)0/1 (0%)
AestheticsBeenackers et al,54 (0,0)0/2 (0%)0/1 (0%)
Crime-related safetyFoster et al,46 (0,+)Foster et al,46 (0,+)Foster et al,46 (0,+)Beenackers et al,54 (0)3/7 (43%)1.5/4 (38%)
Aggregated characteristics
 Walkability/pedestrian friendlinessGiles-Corti (+)Giles-Corti (+)Braun et al,27 (0)Krizek
(+,+)
4/5 (80%)3/4 (75%)
 Neighbourhood type (New-Urbanist, traditional)Christian et al,58 (0)Christian et al,58 (0)Christian et al,58 (0)0/3 (0%)0/3 (0%)
 SprawlLee (0)Lee (0)0/2 (0%)0/2 (0%)
Consistency score*
 Unweighted +%22/42 (52%)1/7 (14%)5/28 (18%)2/6 (33%)4/14 (29%)
 Weighted +%10.7/26 (41%)0.3/4 (8%)1.5/12 (12%)2/4 (50%)3/8 (38%)
  • Bold entries denote objectively measured environmental attributes.

  • *Unweighted consistency score: the percentage of associations coded ‘+’ out of the total number of associations; weighted consistency score: applied weighting to results from the same study by a factor of 1/total number of results from the same study in one cell. For this table, data from refs.46 51 54 55 58 were from the same study.

  • †A study can contribute to more than one finding to each combination of built environment attribute and outcome when it involved different exposure measures for the same category of environmental attribute or different measures for the same domain of outcomes.

  • +, statistically significant associations in the expected direction; –, statistically significant associations in the unexpected direction; 0, non-significant associations (expected direction is detailed in online supplementary table 2; ?, inconsistent results within an association between an environmental attribute and an outcome. In the case of,Coogan et al, 60 an increase in housing density was significantly associated with both increase and decrease in exercise (recreational) walking; in Beenackers et al, 54 ‘access to a mixed service’ had inconsistent associations with taking up cycling for transport (50%) in adjusted models.