Table 1.
Details of reviewed articles of built environment characteristics and mobility in those aged 60 years and older.
| Associationsb | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | Sample Size | Location | Age range or mean (SD) | Neighborhood definition (n units) |
Built environment measuresa | Outcomes | Expected direction | Unexpected direction | Null |
| Beard et al., 2009 [40] | 937,857 | New York, New York | 65+ | Census tracts (2,138) | Mixed land use | Disability | X | ||
| Neighborhood decay | Disability | X | |||||||
| Through routes | Disability | X | |||||||
| Poor street characteristics | Disability | X | |||||||
| Berke et al., 2007 [35] | 1967 | Seattle, Washington | 65–97 | 100, 500, or 1000 meters from homes | Walkability index including residential and commercial density | Walking | Xd | ||
| Brown et al., 2008 [26] | 273 | Miami, Florida | Mean = 78.5 (NR) | Participant's block | Front entrance characteristicsc | Physical functioning after 24 months | X | ||
| Clarke & George, 2005 [39] | 4154 | North Carolina | Mean = 73.55 (6.72) | Census tracts (95) | Housing density | Disability | Xe | ||
| Land use diversity | Xe | ||||||||
| Clarke et al., 2009 [25] | 1821 | USA | Results for: 65–74 and 75+ | Census tracts (1821) | Population density | Increase in walking difficulty over 15 years | X | ||
| Non-automobile commuters | Xf | ||||||||
| Fisher et al., 2004 [34] | 582 | Portland, Oregon | 64–94; Mean = 73.99 (6.25) | City defined neighborhoods (56) | Parks | Walking | X | ||
| Frank et al., 2010 [3] | 1970 | Atlanta, Georgia | 65+ | 1 kilometer from homes | Walkability index including land use mix, residential density and street connectivity | Walking | X | ||
| Gomez et al., 2010 [29] | 1886 | Bogotá, Columbia | 60–98; Mean= 70.7 (7.7) | Researcher defined by SES (50) | Lives in weekend pedestrian-only corridor | Walking | X | ||
| Transit stops | X | ||||||||
| Parks | X | ||||||||
| Connectivity | X | ||||||||
| Hall & McAuley, 2010 [38] | 128 | Illinois | Mean = 69.8 (5.89) | 1 kilometer from homes | Paths | Walking | X | ||
| Parks | X | ||||||||
| Recreation areas | X | ||||||||
| Exercise/gym facilities | X | ||||||||
| Schools | X | ||||||||
| King, 2008 [36] | 190 | Denver, Colorado | Mean = 74.2 (5.8) | City defined neighborhoods (8) | Sidewalk functionalityc | Walking | X | ||
| Safety from trafficc | X | ||||||||
| Aestheticsc | X | ||||||||
| Destinationsc | X | ||||||||
| Lee et al., 2009 [27] | 4997 | USA | Mean=70 (NR) | County (448) | Sprawl | Walking—cross-sectional analysis | X | ||
| Increase in walking over 5 years | X | ||||||||
| Li et al., 2005 [33] | 582 | Portland, Oregon | Mean = 74 (6.3) | City defined neighborhoods (56) | Residential households | Walking | X | ||
| Places of employment | X | ||||||||
| Street intersections | X | ||||||||
| Green space and recreational facilities | X | ||||||||
| Michael et al., 2006 [32] | 105 | Portland, Oregon | Mean = 75.1 (6.3) | City defined neighborhoods (10) | Shopping mall | Walking | X | ||
| Trails | X | ||||||||
| Sidewalk presencec | X | ||||||||
| Sidewalk conditionc | X | ||||||||
| Graffiti/vandalismc | X | ||||||||
| Michael et al., 2010 [28] | 422 | Portland, Oregon | Median = 74 | 1/8, 1/4, and 1/2 mile from homes | Parks | Increase in walking over 3–6 year follow-up | Xg | ||
| Trails | Xg | ||||||||
| Recreational facilities | X | ||||||||
| Nagel et al., 2008 [31] | 546 | Portland, Oregon | Mean = 74.5 (6.3) | 1/4 or 1/2 mile from homes | Automobile traffic volume | Walking | X | ||
| Sidewalk coverage | X | ||||||||
| Intersection frequency | X | ||||||||
| Public transportation access | X | ||||||||
| Retail establishments | X | ||||||||
| Park/green space | X | ||||||||
| Patterson & Chapman, 2004 [30] | 133 | Portland, Oregon | 70–92 | Census tract (6) | New Urbanism Index including mix use, connectivity and aesthetics | Walking | X | ||
| Satariano et al., 2010 [37] | 884 | 4 USA locationsh | 65+ | Within 400 meters of homes | Common destinations | Walking | X | ||
| Street connectivity | X | ||||||||
| Commercial/mixed use neighborhood | X | ||||||||
aFrom administrative databases unless otherwise indicated.
bFrom fully adjusted models when multiple results provided.
cFrom rater assessments.
dAmong those living in same residence for ≥2 years, positive association was found only among women.
ePositive association was found only among those with lower body impairments.
fPositive association was found only among those aged 75 and older.
gPositive association was found only among those in high socioeconomic neighborhoods.
hLocations include Alameda County, CA; Allegheny County, PA; Cook County, IL; and Wake and Durham Counties, NC.
NR: not reported.