Table 6

Summary results of evidence on the relationship environmental factors and total walking/cycling
Environm. variables Positive association Negative association No association A* B* C* D*
Walkability 61 1 N/A N/A N/A
Residential density 33M, 33F 1 N/A N/A N/A
Land use mix diversity 33F 33M 1 N/A N/A N/A
Street connectivity 33M, 33F 1 N/A N/A N/A
Access to shops/services/work 54, 54, 54, 67 33M, 33F, 39M, 39M, 39F, 39F 54, 54, 54, 54, 54, 67 4 4/16 25 00
Access to public transport 33F 33M, 93, 93 2 N/A N/A N/A
Access to recreation facilities 54, 54, 61, 92 33M, 33F, 39M, 39M, 39M, 39M, 39F, 39F, 39F, 39F, 61, 61, 67, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92 6 4/36 11 00
Walking/cycling facilities 26, 33M 33M, 33F, 33F 2 N/A N/A N/A
Safety 54, 71 39M, 39M, 39M, 39M, 39F, 39F, 39F, 39F, 71 3 2/11 18 0
Traffic-related safety 26, 33M, 33F, 39M, 39M, 39F, 39F 3 0/7 0 0
Crime-related safety 26, 33M, 33F, 67, 67 3 0/5 0 0
Aesthetics 54 33M, 33F, 39M, 39M, 39F, 39F, 54, 54, 54 3 1/10 10 0
Urbanization 26, 54 42M, 42F, 67 3 2/5 40 (+)
Quality of environment 71 71 61 2 N/A N/A N/A

* A = n° of independent studies; B = n° of associated records divided by all records; C = % of evidence; D = summary code.

Regular vs italics font = subjective vs objective PA measures; regular vs bold font = subjective vs objective environmental measures.

M = specific results for males; F = specific results for females.

Van Holle et al.

Van Holle et al. BMC Public Health 2012 12:807   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-807

Open Data