Table 7
Summary results of evidence on the relationship environmental factors and recreational walking/cycling
Environm. variables Positive association Negative association No association A* B* C* D*
Walkability 78, 83, 85 82, 82, 821, 822, 86 5 3/8 38 0
Residential density 34, 34 1 N/A N/A N/A
Land use mix diversity 34 34 1 N/A N/A N/A
Street connectivity 85 34, 34 2 N/A N/A N/A
Access to shops/services/work 34, 34, 63, 85 3 0/4 0 0
Access to public transport 34, 34 1 N/A N/A N/A
Access to recreation facilities 92, 92, 92 52, 52, 52 34, 34, 40M, 40M, 40M, 40M, 40F, 40F, 40F, 40F, 52, 85, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92 5 3/35 9 00
Walking/cycling facilities 34 34, 34, 34, 85, 85 2 N/A N/A N/A
Safety 63 85 2 N/A N/A N/A
Traffic-related safety 40M, 40F, 41M, 41F 34, 34, 85 4 4/7 57 +
Crime-related safety 34, 34, 40M, 40F, 63, 85 4 0/6 0 00
Aesthetics 63 34, 34, 63, 63, 85 3 1/6 17 0
Urbanization 84 84, 84, 84 1 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; 1 = specific results for 1st subgroup; 2 = specific results for 2nd subgroup.

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

Open Data