Table 3.
Estimated effects of street greenness on active travel in the studies included in the review.
| Study ID | First author (year) | Estimated effects of street greenness on active travel | Main findings of this study |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sarkar, 2015 (34) | 1. The regularity observed was that a higher density of street trees consistently correlated with an increased likelihood of walking (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.03–1.10). 2. Among the factors related to street-level design and accessibility, local-scale betweenness at a 400-meter radius was found to have a positive association with walking. Compared to the lowest quartile, the second and fourth quartiles exhibited significantly increased odds of walking (1.15, 95% CI = 0.99–1.32 and 1.29, 95% CI = 1.09–1.53, respectively in model 3). 3. Conversely, when examining meso-scale betweenness at a 3,000-meter radius, it was linked to a reduced likelihood of falling into the category of individuals who engage in some walking (with odds ratios of 0.86, 95% CI = 0.75–0.99; 0.84, 95% CI = 0.72–0.98; and 0.84, 95% CI = 0.71–0.99 for the second, third, and fourth quartiles, respectively). 4. The density of street trees exhibited a consistent positive correlation with the distance walked, which remained stable across all models after accounting for other factors (0.056, 0.025–0.088 for model 1; 0.055, 0.024–0.086 for model 2; 0.039, 0.007–0.071 for model 3). 5. The association between street-level betweenness and the distance walked remains statistically non-significant. |
1. There is a notable correlation between the odds of walking and the density of street trees as well as street-level betweenness (which measures street network connectivity). 2. The sensitivity analyses involving continuous regression models for individuals engaged in some walking revealed favorable associations between the distance walked and street trees. |
| 2 | Li, 2018 (35) | 1. In the cases of residential land, commercial land, recreational land, and industrial land, there is no statistically significant association between the street enclosure by trees and the trip number. | 1. The relationship between the visibility of street greenery and human walking activities varies depending on the land use types. 2. There is no statistically significant association between street enclosure by trees and human walking activities in any of the land use types. |
| 2. In the case of residential and commercial land, there is a notable and negative correlation between the green view index and the trip number (with coefficients of −1.50 × 10–2, p < 0.01 for residential land and − 1.35 × 10–2, p < 0.01 for commercial land). However, for recreational and industrial land, there is no significant association between the green view index and the trip number. | |||
| 3 | Lu, 2018a (36) | Green view index and the odds of walking: | Eye-level greenery was found to be significantly associated with increased odds of walking and extended walking time within both the 400-meter and 800-meter buffers. |
| 400 m Buffer: OR = 1.149, 95%CI = 1.035, 1.276, p = 0.009 | |||
| 800 m Buffer: OR = 1.193, 95%CI = 1.070, 1.330, p = 0.001 | |||
| Green view index and walking time: | |||
| 400 m Buffer: β = 0.149, 95%CI = 0.045, 0.253, p = 0.005 | |||
| 800 m Buffer: β = 0.223, 95%CI = 0.133, 0.333, p < 0.001 | |||
| 4 | Lu, 2018b (15) | Street greenery and the odds of walking (800 m Buffer): | 1. Street greenery was associated with higher odds of walking. |
| Level of street greenery (middle-high vs. low): OR = 1.07, 95%CI = 1.01, 1.13, p = 0.023 | |||
| Level of street greenery (high vs. low): OR = 1.09, 95%CI = 1.02, 1.16, p = 0.009 | 2. Street greenery was linked to the total time spent walking. | ||
| Street greenery and walking time (800 m Buffer): | |||
| β = 0.09, 95%CI = 0.04, 0.14, p < 0.001. | |||
| 5 | Lu, 2018c (37) | Street greenery and achieving ≥150 min of recreational green physical activity a week (1,000 m Buffer): | The presence and amount of street greenery showed a positive correlation with recreational physical activity. |
| Quantity of street greenery (high vs. low): OR = 1.20, 95%CI = 1.08, 1.33, p = 0.02 | |||
| Quality of street greenery (high vs. low): OR = 1.10, 95%CI = 1.05, 1.25, p < 0.01 | |||
| 6 | Lu, 2019 (38) | Street greenness and the odds of cycling: | There was a positive correlation between the likelihood of cycling and eye-level street greenness within three different buffer zones: 400 m, 800 m, and 1,600 m. |
| 400 m buffer: OR = 1.21, 95%CI = 1.00, 1.46; | |||
| 800 m buffer: OR = 1.25, 95%CI = 1.04, 1.51; | |||
| 1,600 m buffer: OR = 1.36, 95%CI = 1.11, 1.67. | |||
| 7 | Tsai, 2019 (30) | A 10% increase in sidewalk tree cover and odds of participating in active transportation: | 1. The probability of engaging in active transportation was positively linked sidewalk tree cover within all network buffers. 2. Street tree cover did not demonstrate a significant association with active transportation at a 500 m radius in any of the models. However, within network buffers ranging from 750 m to 1,250 m, street tree cover exhibited a positive correlation with active transportation. |
| 500 m buffer: AOR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.02–1.40 (p < 0.05); | |||
| 750 m buffer: AOR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.05–1.49 (p < 0.05); | |||
| 1,000 m buffer: AOR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.05–1.54 (p < 0.05); | |||
| 1,250 m buffer: AOR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.08–1.61 (p < 0.01). | |||
| A 10% increase in street tree cover and odds of participating in active transportation: | |||
| 500 m buffer: AOR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.99–1.43 (p > 0.05); | |||
| 750 m buffer: AOR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.03–1.57 (p < 0.05); | |||
| 1,000 m buffer: AOR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.05–1.67 (p < 0.05); | |||
| 1,250 m buffer: AOR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.09–1.79 (p < 0.01). | |||
| 8 | Vich, 2019 (39) | Tree density and walking time: | The presence of street trees showed a positive correlation with individual walking activity levels. |
| B = 0.001, SE = 0.000, t = 5.895, p = 0.001, 95%CI = 0.000, 0.000. | |||
| 9 | Yang, 2019 (40) | Street greenery and the odds of walking (800 m buffer): | The presence of street greenery exhibited a positive association with both the likelihood of older adults engaging in walking and the total time they spent walking. |
| OR = 1.165, 95%CI = 1.004, 1.352, p = 0.04. | |||
| Street greenery and walking time: | |||
| β = 0.187, (95% CI = 0.071, 0.304, p = 0.002). | |||
| 10 | Chen, 2020 (29) | Green view index and riding density: | Eye-level greenery had a beneficial effect on cycling. |
| Workday: coefficient = 0.061, p < 0.001; | |||
| Weekend: coefficient = 0.049, p < 0.01; | |||
| Total: coefficient = 0.054, p < 0.001. | |||
| 11 | Wang, 2020 (16) | Street-view greenness and cycling frequency on weekdays: | 1. Eye-level greenery showed a positive correlation with the frequency of cycling on both weekdays and weekends within three different buffer sizes around metro stations (500-m, 1,000-m, and 1,500-m). 2. The impact of eye-level greenery on cycling frequency was more pronounced during weekends compared to weekdays. |
| 500 m buffer: coefficient = 1.983, SE = 0.026, p < 0.01; | |||
| 1,000 m buffer: coefficient = 2.095, SE = 0.023, p < 0.01; | |||
| 1,500 m buffer: coefficient = 2.551, SE = 0.028, p < 0.01. | |||
| Street-view greenness and cycling frequency on weekends: | |||
| 500 m buffer: coefficient = 2.520, SE = 0.027, p < 0.01; | |||
| 1,000 m buffer: coefficient = 2.728, SE = 0.024, p < 0.01; | |||
| 1,500 m buffer: coefficient = 3.807, SE = 0.029, p < 0.01. | |||
| 12 | Wu, 2020 (31) | Green View Index and the probability of Active Travel: | 1. The greater the cumulative Green View Index value, the lower the likelihood of increasing the probability of active travel. 2. The average Green View Index significantly increases the incidence of active travel. 3. The buildup of the Green View Index is significantly and positively associated with the distance of active travel. 4. The average Green View Index has a significant adverse impact on both walking and bicycle travel distances. |
| Total green view index: coefficient = −0.001, SE =0.000, p = 0.000; | |||
| Mean green view index: coefficient = 5.873, SE = 0.648, p = 0.000; | |||
| Green View Index and walking distance: | |||
| Total green view index: coefficient = 0.003, SE =0.000, p = 0.000; | |||
| Mean green view index: Coefficient = −1.513, SE = 0.215, p = 0.000; | |||
| Green View Index and cycling distance: | |||
| Total green view index: coefficient = 0.002, SE =0.000, p = 0.000; | |||
| Mean green view index: Coefficient = −2.195, SE = 0.374, p = 0.000. | |||
| 13 | Zang, 2020 (41) | Green View Index and walking time (500 m buffer): | The Street Greenery View Index plays a role in enhancing the walking time of older adults. |
| Coefficient = 0.137, p = 0.05. | |||
| 14 | Gao, 2021 (42) | Street greenness and Bike use: | Eye-level greenery exhibited a positive correlation with the usage of bike sharing on weekdays, weekends, and holidays. |
| On weekdays Coefficient = 4.57, p < 0.05 | |||
| On weekend Coefficient = 3.96, p < 0.05 | |||
| On holidays Coefficient = 4.01, p < 0.05 | |||
| 15 | Ki, 2021 (18) | Green View Index and utilitarian walking time: | A high Green View Index encourages both practical and recreational walking time. |
| Coefficient = 11.070, t = 6.26, p < 0.01; | |||
| Green View Index and leisure walking time: | |||
| Coefficient = 4.241, t = 3.91, p < 0.01. | |||
| 16 | Ta, 2021 (43) | Street-level green space exposure and active travel satisfaction: | 1. Interacting with green spaces during travel enhances people’s overall travel satisfaction. 2. The impact of exposure to green spaces on travel satisfaction differs depending on the mode of travel, its duration, and its purpose. 3. Exposure to green spaces significantly influences satisfaction with walking, nonwork trips, and medium-duration trips. |
| Coefficient = 0.91, p < 0.1; | |||
| Street-level green space exposure and walking satisfaction: | |||
| Coefficient = 1.23, p < 0.05; | |||
| Street-level green space exposure and travel satisfaction with nonwork trips: | |||
| Coefficient = 2.58, p < 0.05; | |||
| Street-level green space exposure and Traveling trips for more than 30 min: | |||
| Coefficient = 2.03, p < 0.1. | |||
| 17 | Yang, 2021a (44) | Streetscape greenery and walking propensity: | Streetscape greenery positively influences the inclination for walking within a specific range, but beyond that range, the positive correlation dissipates. |
| Coefficient = 3.316, p < 0.1 | |||
| 18 | Yang, 2021b (13) | Street greenery and the walking time: | 1. Street greenery consistently and significantly impacts walking duration. 2. The impact of street greenery differs across different locations, with a notably greater effect observed in suburban areas. 3. The performance of various green view indices displays a high level of consistency. |
| 400 m buffer: coefficient = 32.949, t-stat = 2.48, p < 0.05; | |||
| 800 m buffer: coefficient = 46.642, t-stat = 2.79, p < 0.01; | |||
| 1,600 m buffer: Coefficient = 37.851, t-stat = 2.11, p < 0.05. | |||
| 19 | Bai, 2022 (45) | Green Vegetation Index and the likelihood of respondents being willing to participate in AT: | 1. The presence of street greenery on university campuses is linked to a positive correlation with active travel among university students. 2. Modes of transportation also played a role in influencing active travel among university students, with those who owned bicycles being more inclined to engage in active travel. Conversely, those who relied on electric bikes were less likely to participate in active travel. |
| Green vegetation index (Moderate vs. low): OR = 3.674, 95%CI = 1.162, 11.616, p < 0.05; | |||
| Green vegetation index (High vs. low): OR = 3.863, 95%CI = 1.443, 10.340, p < 0.01. | |||
| 20 | Koo, 2022 (46) | Streetscape greenness and odds of walking: OR = 2.070, z-value = 2.655, p < 0.01. | The streetscape greenness exhibited a statistically significant positive association with a higher odds of walking. |
| 21 | Luo, 2022 (32) | 1. The green view index and cycling index: coefficient = 0.138, p < 0.01. 2. The green view index and running index: coefficient = 0.028, p < 0.1. |
1. In general, the Green View Index hinders cycling activities. 2. The Green View Index exhibits a positive correlation with running physical activity in specific regions (Dufu Thatched Cottage and Wukuaishi). |
| 22 | Song, 2022 (25) | Street greenness exposure and walking satisfaction: coefficient = 0.084, p < 0.05. | 1. Exposure to street greenness has a substantial direct impact on walking satisfaction, as well as a significant indirect influence on walking satisfaction through subjective environmental annoyances (such as noise and PM2.5-related annoyances), rather than being mediated by objective noise and PM2.5 exposures. 2. In addition to physical activity and social interaction, it’s important to consider the indirect impact of street greenness exposure on walking satisfaction through subjective environmental pollution annoyance, which constitutes approximately 17.39% of the total effect and should not be overlooked. |
| 23 | Bai, 2023 (47) | Street-view greenness and cycling frequency: | Street-level greenery and the extent of greenway enclosure displayed a positive correlation with an increased frequency of cycling on both weekdays and weekends. However, the level of openness of the greenway seems to have contrasting effects on cycling frequency depending on the day of the week, as high levels of openness may promote cycling on weekends but impede it on weekdays. |
| At Weekend: coefficient = 0.015, SE = 0.001, p < 0.01; | |||
| On Weekdays: coefficient = 0.014, SE = 0.001, p < 0.01; | |||
| In a Week: coefficient = 0.015, SE = 0.001, p < 0.01; | |||
| Street-view openness and cycling frequency: | |||
| At Weekend: coefficient = 0.005, SE = 0.001, p < 0.01; | |||
| On Weekdays: coefficient = −0.011, SE = 0.001, p < 0.01; | |||
| In a Week: coefficient = −0.003, SE = 0.001, p < 0.05; | |||
| Street-view enclosure and cycling frequency: | |||
| At Weekend: coefficient = 0.016, SE = 0.001, p < 0.01; | |||
| On Weekdays: coefficient = 0.016, SE = 0.001, p < 0.01; | |||
| In a Week: coefficient = 0.017, SE = 0.001, p < 0.01. | |||
| 24 | Gao, 2023 (48) | Greenery view index and bike-sharing usage: | The Greenery View Index positively influences the usage of bike-sharing. |
| All: incidence rate ratios = 1.003, z-value = 39.18, p < 0.001; | |||
| Weekday: incidence rate ratios = 1.003, z-value = 36.63, p < 0.001; | |||
| Weekend: incidence rate ratios = 1.003, z-value = 14.62, p < 0.001; | |||
| Morning: incidence rate ratios = 1.001, z-value = 5.695, p < 0.001; | |||
| Noon: incidence rate ratios = 1.007, z-value = 24.27, p < 0.001; | |||
| Evening: incidence rate ratios = 1.003, z-value = 12.98, p < 0.001. | |||
| 25 | Liu, 2023 (49) | Street greenery and walking duration: | During weekends, there was a statistically significant positive association between street greenery and the duration of walking. |
| On weekdays: coefficient = −0.006, SE = 0.006, p > 0.1; | |||
| For weekends: coefficient = 0.03, SE = 0.01, p < 0.05. | |||
| 26 | Xie, 2023 (17) | Greenway proximity and greenway use frequency: | 1. The proximity to greenways exhibited a negative correlation with both the frequency and intensity of greenway use. 2. Having good greenway proximity did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with the amount of time spent using greenways. |
| Coefficient = −0.12, 95%CI = −0.19, −0.05, p < 0.01; | |||
| Greenway proximity and greenway use time: | |||
| Coefficient = −0.02, 95%CI = −0.08, 0.04, p > 0.1; Greenway proximity and greenway use intensity: | |||
| OR = 0.73, 95%CI = 0.54, 0.98, p < 0.05. |