Journal of Aging Research / 2011 / Article / Tab 1

Review Article

The Urban Built Environment and Mobility in Older Adults: A Comprehensive Review

Table 1

Details of reviewed articles of built environment characteristics and mobility in those aged 60 years and older.

Associationsb
ReferenceSample SizeLocationAge range or mean (SD)Neighborhood definition
(n units)
Built environment measuresaOutcomesExpected directionUnexpected directionNull

Beard et al., 2009 [40]937,857New York, New York65+Census tracts (2,138)Mixed land useDisabilityX
Neighborhood decayDisabilityX
Through routesDisabilityX
Poor street characteristicsDisabilityX
Berke et al., 2007 [35]1967Seattle, Washington65–97100, 500, or 1000 meters from homesWalkability index including residential and commercial densityWalkingXd
Brown et al., 2008 [26]273Miami, FloridaMean = 78.5 (NR)Participant’s blockFront entrance characteristicscPhysical functioning after 24 monthsX
Clarke & George, 2005 [39]4154North CarolinaMean = 73.55 (6.72)Census tracts (95)Housing densityDisabilityXe
Land use diversityXe
Clarke et al., 2009 [25]1821USAResults for: 65–74 and 75+Census tracts (1821)Population densityIncrease in walking difficulty over 15 yearsX
Non-automobile commutersXf
Fisher et al., 2004 [34]582Portland, Oregon64–94; Mean = 73.99 (6.25)City defined neighborhoods (56)ParksWalkingX
Frank et al., 2010 [3]1970Atlanta, Georgia65+1 kilometer from homesWalkability index including land use mix, residential density and street connectivityWalkingX
Gomez et al., 2010 [29]1886Bogotá, Columbia60–98; Mean= 70.7 (7.7)Researcher defined by SES (50)Lives in weekend pedestrian-only corridorWalkingX
Transit stopsX
ParksX
ConnectivityX
Hall & McAuley, 2010 [38]128IllinoisMean = 69.8 (5.89)1 kilometer from homesPathsWalkingX
ParksX
Recreation areasX
Exercise/gym facilitiesX
SchoolsX
King, 2008 [36]190Denver, ColoradoMean = 74.2 (5.8)City defined neighborhoods (8)Sidewalk functionalitycWalkingX
Safety from trafficcX
AestheticscX
DestinationscX
Lee et al., 2009 [27]4997USAMean=70 (NR)County (448)SprawlWalking—cross-sectional analysisX
Increase in walking over 5 yearsX
Li et al., 2005 [33]582Portland, OregonMean = 74 (6.3)City defined neighborhoods (56)Residential householdsWalkingX
Places of employmentX
Street intersectionsX
Green space and recreational facilitiesX
Michael et al., 2006 [32]105Portland, OregonMean = 75.1 (6.3)City defined neighborhoods (10)Shopping mallWalkingX
TrailsX
Sidewalk presencecX
Sidewalk conditioncX
Graffiti/vandalismcX
Michael et al., 2010 [28]422Portland, OregonMedian = 741/8, 1/4, and 1/2 mile from homesParksIncrease in walking over 3–6 year follow-upXg
TrailsXg
Recreational facilitiesX
Nagel et al., 2008 [31]546Portland, OregonMean = 74.5 (6.3)1/4 or 1/2 mile from homesAutomobile traffic volumeWalkingX
Sidewalk coverageX
Intersection frequencyX
Public transportation accessX
Retail establishmentsX
Park/green spaceX
Patterson & Chapman, 2004 [30]133Portland, Oregon70–92Census tract (6)New Urbanism Index including mix use, connectivity and aestheticsWalkingX
Satariano et al., 2010 [37]8844 USA locationsh65+Within 400 meters of homesCommon destinationsWalkingX
Street connectivityX
Commercial/mixed use neighborhoodX

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.