Walkable Communities in Haldimand and Norfolk

Addressing Rural Health Needs Walkable Communities in Haldimand and Norfolk

Acknowledgements Author Jackie Esbaugh, BA, MA Program Evaluator and Data Analyst Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit Executive Summary 519-426-6170 Ext. 3305 [email protected] Introduction to Walkable Communities and walkON Thank you to the following individuals for their Being walkable is an important aspect of contributions to this report: healthy and vibrant communities (Humpel, Cleaning of the Initial Central West Data File, Owen & Leslie, 2002). Research suggests Preparation of Supporting Documentation that the way our communities are designed and Initial Data Analysis impacts our levels of physical activity Karen Moynah • Health Analyst (Humphrey, 2005). Well-designed, compact Halton Region Health Department communities where people can walk to Kendra Willard • Health Promoter school, work, stores, parks and restaurants Halton Region Health Department significantly reduce the need to drive (Hum- Reviewers pel, Owen & Leslie, 2002; Abelsohn, Bray, Karen Boughner, RN, BScN • Manager, Public Health Vakil & Elliot, 2005).There are many health, Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit economic and environmental benefits of Patti Moore, RN, BScN, MPA building and sustaining walkable com- General Manager, Health & Social Services Department, Norfolk County munities (Humpel, Owen & Leslie, 2002). Walking can reduce the risk of coronary Malcolm Lock, MD • Medical Officer of Health Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit heart disease and stroke by controlling blood pressure, high blood cholesterol and Contributors obesity (Heart and Stroke Foundation of Deanna Morris, MA, PhD (candidate) • Epidemiologist Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit Ontario, 2010). As well, walking can reduce the risk of certain types of cancer, Type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and arthritis (Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, 2010). It also can enhance Jill Steen BSc, MHSc, RD Program Coordinator, Population Health mental well-being (Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, 2010). Along with its health ben- Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit efits, walkability is a good investment as reducing traffic, noise, speeds and vehicle pollution

Heather Keam, BA • Heart Health Coordinator has been found to increase property values (Littman, 1999). Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit The Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit has been a member of the Central West walkON Designed By Communication Services Team program since its inception in 2004, along with five other health units (Brant, Halton, Niagara, Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit Waterloo and Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph). The program identified a need to support the development of walkable communities. In keeping with the evidence-based approach, walkON decided to conduct a telephone survey to identify what the public knows about walkability prior to implementing further programs at local levels. This report includes findings from Hal- dimand County and Norfolk County and makes recommendations based on those results.

www.hnhu.org • [email protected] September 2010 Methodology and could correctly identify at least Selected Fast Facts Survey methodology was used. one of its components compared to • 41% of respondents were The survey was divided into five sections: other age groups. familiar with the term “walkable 1. Knowledge of walkable • More Norfolk than Haldimand community.” communities and walkON. residents were familiar with the term oo 32.2% were familiar with the 2. Attitudes toward walkable “walkable community.” term and correctly identified communities. one of its components. 3. Knowledge of how the built Attitudes toward walkable communities • “Having places within walking environment impacts health. • The most important component distance” was the most frequent 4. Barriers to creating walkable of a walkable community that response when asked what a communities. respondents considered when walkable community meant to 5. Demographics. deciding where to live was having them. connected sidewalks and paths. • 71.6% of respondents said that Results • Respondents also felt that living in a having connected sidewalks Demographics neighbourhood with little or no traffic and pathways was the most A greater percentage of survey respon- and having a big yard or garden was important component of a dents was female (67.8%, n=200) with important. walkable community to consider the highest proportion of respondents when deciding where to live. being in the age 41-63 group (53.4%, How the built environment impacts • Three qualities that are n=151). Most of the respondents lived in physical activity not essential to walkable detached homes (89.5%, n=261). The • For respondents living in a town, communities are also very majority of respondents was identified hamlet or small village, the most important to respondents when as living in a town/small village/hamlet important component of a walkable deciding where to live: (62.6%, n=174). The majority of respon- community affecting their ability to oo Having a sense of belonging dents (50%, n=146) had a college or uni- be physically active would be having (87.0% of respondents). versity degree, followed by a high school roads, sidewalks and pathways that oo Having a big yard or garden diploma (27.9%, n=81). are in good condition. (84.7% of respondents). • For respondents living in the country, oo Living in a neighbourhood When asked how many days in a typical having trails or paths within a five- to with little or no traffic (80.4% week they were active for at least 60 min- 10-minute walking or cycling distance of of respondents). utes per day, 28.1% (n=83) reported being home would positively impact their physi- • 71.2% of respondents living in active every day, while 11.9% (n=35) were cal activity. a town, hamlet or small village not even active for one day per week. said that the most important Perceived barriers to creating components of walkable Repondents were also asked how walkable communities communities affecting their ability many hours during a typical week they • Respondents living in a town, hamlet or to be physically active would spent walking to work, school or doing small village would be most opposed be having roads, sidewalks errands in the past three months. Overall, to adding new types of housing. and pathways that are in good 37.4% (n=109) of respondents spent less • Respondents living in the country condition. than an hour or no time at all walking to would oppose the addition of paved • 40% of respondents living in work, school or doing errands. shoulders to both sides of the road. the country felt that having trails or pathways within a five- to Knowledge about walkable Conclusion 10-minute walking or cycling communities Haldimand County and Norfolk County distance of home could impact • 41% of respondents (n=121) were have already carried out many initiatives their physical activity. familiar with the term “walkable and campaigns to advance walking and • 55.1% of respondents living in community.” cycling in our communities. Some of a town, hamlet or small village • 32.2% of respondents (n=95) had these include: would oppose the addition of heard of the term and were able to • The creation of trails, trail master new types of housing. identify correctly at least one of its plans and trail guides. • 45.6% of country respondents five components. • Citizen advocacy groups promoting ex- would oppose the addition of • “Having places within walking isting trails and the creation of new ones. paved shoulders to both sides of distance” was the most frequent and • Campaigns: iCANwalk, snow the road. correct response when asked what a clearing, bike safety, etc. walkable community meant to them. • More women than men were familiar While great work has occurred in both with the term “walkable community.” counties, continued efforts are necessary • More respondents from the age 41 to to make Haldimand County and Norfolk 63 group were familiar with the term County more walkable, healthy and vibrant.

2 A Walkable Community SECTION ONE: Introduction & Background

Section One: Introduction and Background

Norfolk St., Simcoe, ON

1.1 Purpose of This Report walkable communities. of the projects of the Ontario Heart Health In 2007, the Central West walkON Coor- oo How the built environment Program - Taking Action for Healthy Living. dinating Committee conducted a com- impacts physical activity. munity survey to assess what the public oo Perceived barriers to creating The program identified a need to thought and felt about walkable commu- walkable communities. support the development of walkable nities. In keeping with the evidence-based • Inform the development and communities. After conducting extensive approach to walkON programming, the implementation of local programming research, including literature reviews and committee decided that it would be that will increase support for and interviews with key players in the com- prudent to identify what the public knows action toward developing walkable munities, walkON developed a mission, about walkability prior to implementing communities. structure and plans for the future. The further campaigns and programs at local • Provide baseline data for evaluating mission of walkON is to promote the levels. The results of the survey would local efforts. development of communities that support inform campaigns and serve as baseline walking for transportation, health and data for evaluation purposes. recreation. WalkON envisions an Ontario 1.2 Introduction to walkON where people value and seek communi- This report includes the findings from The Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit has ties that are safe, convenient and acces- Haldimand County and Norfolk County been a member of the Central West sible to all for their daily needs. WalkON and makes recommendations based on walkON program since its inception, along strives to: the survey results. The purpose of this with five other health units (Brant, Halton, • Mobilize communities to focus on report is to: Niagara, Waterloo and Wellington-Dufferin- improving the built environment • Provide background and a Guelph). The walkON program began in through education and access to description of the walkON program 2004 as a joint initiative of Heart Health resources. and walkable communities. Partnerships from the Central West region • Improve the built environment in • Provide information regarding: of Ontario. It is supported by the Ministry order to support walking as a form of oo Knowledge and attitudes of of Health Promotion and is funded as one everyday, functional and recreational

A Walkable Community 3 SECTION ONE: Introduction & Background

transportation. Figure 1: walkON’s Five Elements of Walkable Communities • Increase the proportion of residents in Central West communities who choose walking as a way to be active.

WalkON supports this vision by provid- ing many resources for the public’s use, including workshops, information ses- sions, checklists, tool kits, reports and relevant research. 1.3 What is a Walkable Community? Being walkable is an important aspect of healthy and vibrant communities (Humpel, Owen & Leslie, 2002). Research suggests that the way our communities are designed impacts our levels of physical activity (Humphrey, 2005). To encourage citizens to rely less on their cars and choose walking, the environment in which they live, work, learn and play must support walking as a form of everyday transportation (Humpel, Owen & Leslie, 2002; Abelsohn, Bray, Vakil & Elliot, 2005). Well-designed, compact communities where people can walk to school, work, stores, parks and restaurants significantly reduce the need to drive (Humpel, Owen Urban planners, sociologists and other walking distance, they will still be required & Leslie, 2002; Abelsohn, Bray, Vakil & professionals have reviewed the litera- to use their cars for transportation (Bray, Elliot, 2005). ture relating to factors that influence the Vakil & Elliott, 2005). walkability of communities. Based on There are many health, economic and this work, walkON has chosen five key Density environmental benefits to building and components that define a walkable com- Density refers to the measure of activity sustaining communities that support munity (see Figure 1): found in an area, often defined as popula- walking as a primary mode of transpor- • Access to amenities. tion, employment or building square tation (Humpel, Owen & Leslie, 2002; • Density. footage per unit area (Handy, Boarnet, Abelsohn, Bray, Vakil & Elliot, 2005). • Safety. Ewing & Kilingsworth, 2002). Sprawl- Numerous studies have shown that • Aesthetics. ing communities have low density with walking can reduce the risk of coronary • Connectivity (walkON, 2009). fewer people living on large lots in large heart disease and stroke by controlling areas far away from businesses, jobs, blood pressure, high blood cholesterol Access to amenities stores and restaurants (Frank, Schmid, and obesity (Heart and Stroke Foundation Access to amenities refers to the amount Chapman & Saelens, 2005). Generally of Ontario, 2010). As well, walking can of different land uses within a given area speaking, higher population and employ- reduce the risk of certain types of cancer, and their proximity to one another. Neigh- ment density are related to more walking Type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and arthri- bourhoods should include homes as well and cycling (Frank, Schmid, Chapman & tis (Heart and Stroke Foundation of On- as offices, stores, restaurants and other Saelens, 2005). tario, 2010). It can also enhance mental services and amenities such as religious well-being (Heart and Stroke Foundation institutions, schools, social and recre- Safety of Ontario, 2010). Along with its health ational facilities (Handy, Boarnet, Ewing Safety from injury and crime is also an benefits, walkability is a good investment & Kilingsworth, 2002). A neighbourhood element of the built environment that may as reducing traffic, noise, speeds and ve- could have a large number of homes, but have an impact on physical activity (wal- hicle pollution has been found to increase if residents do not have access to ser- kON, 2009). Safe walking routes feature property values (Littman, 1999). vices and amenities within a reasonable separation from the road, traffic calming

4 A Walkable Community SECTION ONE: Introduction & Background

elements, clear and functional sidewalks, adequate lighting, crossing signals and legible street signs (walkON, 2009).

Aesthetics Aesthetics refers to the attractiveness or appeal of an area (walkON, 2009). Aesthetic factors include building design, landscaping and the availability of amenities such as benches and lighting (walkON, 2009). It is the most intangible of the five built environment dimensions to measure (Handy, Boarnet, Ewing & Kilingsworth, 2002).

Connectivity Connectivity refers to the directness or availability of alternative routes from one point to another within a neighbourhood (Frank & Engelke, 2001). A highly connected street network provides many possible routes between destinations (Handy, Boarnet, Ewing & Kilingsworth, 2002). Areas of urban sprawl have low connectivity, typified by long blocks and dead-end streets or crescents. This indirect street pattern is less safe and less convenient for walking and cycling (Handy, Boarnet, Ewing & Kilingsworth, 2002).

1.4 Haldimand and Norfolk Counties To delineate the scope of this study, Hal- dimand and Norfolk Counties were exam- ined. Haldimand and Norfolk Counties are both considered rural communities. The two counties combined have a population of 107,775 (Statistics Canada, 2009). There are no metropolitan cities, urban centres or northern hinterlands, rather small towns and non-metropolitan cities. With population density serving as an indicator of rural populations (Hart, Larson & Lishner, 2005), Haldimand and Norfolk’s population density of 37.7 people/km2 further supports the claim of their rural nature (Statistics Canada, 2009).

Hagersville, ON

A Walkable Community 5 SECTION TWO: Methodology

SECTION TWO: METHODOLOGY

Norfolk Street, Simcoe ON

2.1 Survey Instrument Type of Neighbourhood • Living on a farm. The staff of both Halton Region Health From the pilot, results indicated that the • Living in a residential estate home. Department and Waterloo Region Public type of neighbourhood in which re- Respondents living in a small village Health, in consultation with the Central spondents lived – e.g., town vs. coun- or hamlet were categorized with respon- West walkON Coordinating Committee, try – needed to be defined and further dents living in a town or city. This decision developed the survey (see Appendix A). explored because different factors relating was made as certain characteristics of Input was provided by epidemiologists to walkable communities are more signifi- villages and hamlets are similar to towns at the participating health units. A pilot cant to each type of setting. For example, and cities in regard to walkable communi- was conducted to test the validity of the proximity and access to amenities are ties. For example, similar to respondents instrument. Changes were made to spe- factors with more relevance in a town set- living in a town, respondents in a small cific questions to improve the clarity and ting. Conversely, having paved shoulders village or hamlet might be able to walk flow of the survey. The final survey was on both sides of the road may be more to some amenities, such as churches, divided into the following five sections, relevant in country settings for enhanc- schools, corner stores, community however, they do not reflect the exact ing walkability. The following criteria were centres, community mailboxes, etc. This order in which they appeared. used to stratify survey respondents: would not be the case for respondents liv- 1. Knowledge of walkable ing more remotely on a concession road. communities and walkON. Living in a town was defined as: As well, hamlets and villages have the 2. Attitudes toward walkable • Living in a downtown centre or core potential for growth with greater cluster- communities. of a city or town. ing of houses, which is consistent with 3. Knowledge of how the built • Living within a city or town. characteristics of towns and cities. environment impacts health. • Living in a hamlet or small village. 4. Barriers to creating walkable This distinction between “town/small communities. Living in the country was defined as: village/hamlet” and “country” was made 5. Demographics. • Living outside of a city or town, for questions relating to knowledge of including the countryside. how the built environment affects physical

6 A Walkable Community SECTION TWO: Methodology

activity and barriers to creating walkable communities. It is important to note that the terms “town” and “country” are elusive terms that share no universal agreement among survey respondents. To stratify the respondents based on the type of neighbourhood in which they lived was based on the participants’ subjective judgement and perception. A participant’s response to questions that measure the type of neighbourhood where he or she lived may be inconsistent with his or her neighbour who lives in close proximity. For example, it is conceivable that neighbours living on the outskirts of the town of Courtland could easily differ on their opinions of whether they lived “in a town” or “outside of a town.” Therefore, the validity of their responses may be compromised, and this warrants using a degree of caution when interpreting results.

Other Factors Not Essential to Walkable Communities The survey also included questions relat- Caledonia, ON ing to three factors that are not considered essential to walkable communities: • Having a sense of belonging. search Centre conducted the telephone than 5% and where the response options • Having little or no traffic. survey, which lasted an average of 10 were not considered valid. These options • Having a big yard or garden. minutes. Data were collected for seven were excluded primarily to simplify data health units (Brant, Haldimand-Norfolk, analysis. Sense of Belonging Halton, Hamilton, Niagara, Waterloo and A sense of belonging is believed to be a Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph) from July to The data were weighted to account benefit of walkable communities as it al- November 2007. Random digit dialling for the number of adults living within a lows people to get to know their neigh- was used to reach respondents. Each household. Since the question about bourhood (Central West walkON Coordi- number was called up to eight times, with the number of adults within a household nating Committee, 2009). more attempts made when encountering was not added until partway through the a busy signal. survey, cases where the data were not Having Little or No Traffic collected were given a value of 2.02, rep- Having little or no traffic usually means living For Haldimand and Norfolk Counties, resenting the average number of adults on dead-end streets or cul-de-sacs, which the sample size requested by the Health in the household. The household weight decreased connectivity (Central West wal- Unit was 300. A final sample size of used for Haldimand and Norfolk data kON Coordinating Committee, 2009). 295 was achieved. Moreover, out of the analysis equals 0.50600. 11,597 total eligible surveys for Central Having a Big Backyard or Garden West, 3,409 surveys were completed. The majority of information in this report Having a big backyard or garden usu- This resulted in a response rate of 29.4% includes frequencies and chi-squares. Some ally means larger lots and more distance for the entire Central West area. categories were collapsed to employ 2 X 2 between houses. This negatively impacts chi-squared analyses. Comparisons were the development of walkable communities 2.3 Data Analysis made for some demographic variables. Sig- (Central West walkON Coordinating Com- Nearly all of the survey options of “don’t nificant differences were evaluated with chi- mittee, 2009). know,” “not sure” and “refused” were square analyses. The data were analyzed coded as missing values, with the excep- using SPSS Statistics (version 17.0). 2.2 Sample Selection tion of household income. This occurred The University of Waterloo’s Survey Re- for questions where responses were less

A Walkable Community 7 SECTION THREE: Results

SECTION THREE: RESULTS

Long Point Causeway, Long Point ON

Figure 2: Sex of Sample The following results are for respondents FigureFigure 2: 2: Sex Sex of Sample from Haldimand County and Norfolk 80 County. 67.8 80 60 67.8 3.1 Demographics Sex 60 40 A greater percentage of survey respon- 32.2 Percent 40 dents were female than male (67.8%, 32.2

Percent 20 n=200 vs. 32.2%, n=95) (see Figure 2). 20 Age 0 The highest proportion of respondents 0 Female Male Sex were from the age 41-63 group (53.4%, Female Male n=151), followed by the age 64 plus Sex group (24.8%, n=70) and the age 18-40 FigureFigure 3: 3: Age Age of Sample group (21.8%, n=62) (see Figure 3). Figure60 3: Age of Sample 53.4 60 50 53.4 50 40 nt

e 40 30 24.8 nt

Percent 21.8 e 30 20 24.8

Percent 21.8 20 10

10 0

0 18‐40 41‐63 6464 years plus Age of sample 18‐40 41‐63 64 years Age of sample Figure 4: Housing Type of Sample 8 A Walkable Community Figure 4: Housing Type of Sample 100 89.5 100 80 89.5 6080

Percent 40

Percent 2040 4.4 4.7 1.4 200 4.4 4.7 Detached house Apartment building/ Semi‐detached Other1.4 0 Condo building house/Attached house Detached house Apartment building/ Semi(townhouse)‐detached Other Condo building house/Attached house Housing type (townhouse) Housing type Figure 2: Sex of Sample

80 67.8

40 32.2 Percent

0 Female Male Sex

Figure 3: Age of Sample

60 53.4 50

40 nt e 30 24.8

Percent 21.8 20

0 SECTION THREE: Results 18‐40 41‐63 64 years Age of sample

Figure 4: Housing Type of Sample Figure 4: Housing Type 100 89.5 80

Percent 40

20 4.4 4.7 1.4 0 Detached house Apartment building/ Semi‐detached Other Condo building house/Attached house (townhouse) Housing type Figure 5: Type of Neighbourhood Simcoe, ON Figure 5: Type of Neighbourhood Figure80 5: Type of Neighbourhood Housing Type 62.6 A large majority of respondents lived in 60 detached homes (89.5%, n=261), while 80 37.4 only a very small proportion lived in either 40 62.6 60 apartment buildings, condominium build- Percent ings, semi-detached houses or attached 20 37.4 houses and other dwellings (see Figure 4). 40 Percent 0 20 Type of Neighbourhood Town Country Type of neighbourhood The majority of respondents identified as 0 living in a town (62.6%, n=174), with only Town Country 37.4% (n=104) living in the country (see Data Note: Living in a town was defined as either living in a downtown centre or core of a city or town, or living within a city Figure 6: Education of SampleType of neighbourhood Figure 5). or town or living in a hamlet or small village. Living in the country was defined as living outside of a city or town, including the countryside, farms or residential estate homes. 60 Education Level Figure 6: Education of Sample 50 Figure50 6: Education Level Figure 6 illustrates the education level of the sample. The majority of respondents 4060 27.9 50.050 (50%, n=146) had a college or university 3050 degree, followed by a high school diploma 2040 Percent 12.2 (27.9%, n=81). 27.9 9.8 1030 20 Household Income Percent 0 12.2 9.8 Figure 7 provides a breakdown of income 10 Did not graduate from Graduated from high Some post‐high school College/university high school school (college/university) diploma/degree levels of the sample. Overall, approximately 0 Education 30% of respondents (29.7%, n=87) had a Did not graduate from Graduated from high Some post‐high school College/university household income of less than $70,000, high school school (college/university) diploma/degree while 29.1% (n=86) reported an income of Figure 7: Income of Sample Education greater than $70,000 (before taxes). Most of the remaining respondents (34.1%, Figure40 Figure 7: Household 7: Income of Income Sample n=101) refused to answer. 40 34.1 34.1 3040 30 34.1

Percent 2030 Percent 20 15.7 16.3 15.7 14 16.3 14.014 12.8 12.8 Percent 1020 10 15.7 16.3 77 14 7.0 12.8

10 0 7 Less than $40,000 $40,000‐$69,999 $70,000‐$100,000 Greater than Don’t know Refused $100,000 Income

A Walkable Community 9 SECTION THREE: Results

Demographic Summary Table 1 provides a summary of the demographic data. Age and housing types are representative of Haldimand and Norfolk Counties, while sex, education and household income are not (Statistics Canada, 2009).

Table 1: Demographic Summary Table

Percent Sample Size (N=295) Sex Female 67.8 200 Male 32.2 95 Total 100 295 Age 18-40 21.8 62 41-63 53.4 151 64 plus 24.8 70 Total 100 283 Housing Type Detached house 89.5 261 Apartment building/condo building 4.4 13 Semi-detached house/attached 4.7 14 house (townhouse) Other 1.4 5 Total 100 293 Type of Neighbourhood Main St., Port Dover, ON Town 62.6 174 Country 37.4 104 Total 100 278 Education Did not graduate from high school 12.2 36 Graduated from high school 27.9 81 Some post-high school (college/ 9.8 28 university) College/university diploma/degree 50.0 146 Total 100 291 Household Income Less than $40,000 15.7 46 $40,000-$69,999 14.0 41 $70,000 - $100,000 16.3 48 Greater than $100,000 12.8 38 Don’t know 7.0 21 Refused 34.1 101 Total 100 295

Data notes: (1) Demographic data were weighted to account for the number of adults St. Andrew St., Port Dover, ON within the household. (2) Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

10 A Walkable Community SECTION THREE: Results

County and Towns in Which Table 2: County and Towns in Which Respondents Reside Respondents Reside Table 2 provides a further breakdown of Percent Sample Size the area in which respondents lived. Fifty- Haldimand seven percent (57.3%, n=165) of respondents lived in Norfolk County, while 42.8% Dunnville 13.5 39 (n=124) resided in Haldimand County. The Caledonia 10.2 29 proportion of respondents in each county was representative of the true popula- Cayuga 8.9 26 tion in Norfolk and Haldimand Counties Hagersville 6.0 17 (Statistics Canada, 2009). Jarvis 3.7 11 Frequency of Physical Activity Townsend 0.5 2 Respondents were asked how many days Haldimand Total 42.8 124 in a typical week they were active for at least 60 minutes per day. The greatest Norfolk proportion of respondents reported being Simcoe 26.9 78 active every day of the week (28.1%, n=83). Approximately half of respondents Delhi 10.9 31 (51.3%, n=151) were active at least five Port Dover 9.5 27 days a week, while 12% (11.9%, n=35) were not even active for 60 minutes one Port Rowan 6.1 18 day a week (see Figure 8). Waterford 3.2 9

Walking Courtland 0.7 2 Thirty-seven percent (37.4%, n=109) of Norfolk Total 57.3 165 respondents reported spending less than an hour (11.1%, n=32) or no time at all Haldimand & Norfolk Total 100 289 (26.3%, n=77) walking to work, to school or while doing errands during a typical FigureFigure 8: Over 8: Over a Typical a Typical Week, Week, the theNumber Number of Daysof Days Physically Physically Active Active Figure 8: Over a Typical Week, the Number of Days Physically Active week. The greatest proportion of respon- for a Total of Atfor Leasta Total 60 of MinutesAt Least 60 per Minutes Day per Day for a Total of At Least 60 Minutes per Day dents spent between one and five hours 30 28.1 performing these activities (32.1%, n=93), 30 28.1 while 31% (30.5%, n=89) spent over five 25 25 hours (see Figure 9). 20 17.4 20 12.9 17.4 15 12.9 15 11.9 10.3 Percent 9.6 1011.9 10.3 Percent 9.6 5.8 10 4.04 5 4 5.8 5 0 0 0 days 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days 0 days 1 dayDays 2 days physically active 3 days for at least 4 days 60 minutes/day 5 days over a 6typical days week 7 days Days physically active for at least 60 minutes/day over a typical week Figure 9: Typical Week in the Past Three Months, FigureFigure 9: 9: Typical TypicalHours Week Week Spent in inthe Walkinthe Past Pastg Three to ThreeWork Months, or Months, to School or Doing Errands Hours SpentHours WalkingSpent Walkin to Work,g to Work School or to orSchool Doing or ErrandsDoing Errands 40 40 26.3 32.1 30 26.3 32.1 30 17.5 20 17.5 20 13 Percent 11.1 13.013 Percent 10 11.1 10 0 0 None Less than 1 hour 1‐5 hours 6‐10 hours Greater than 10 None Less than 1 hour 1‐5 hours 6‐10 hours Greater than 10hours Hours spent walking to work or to school or while doing errandshours Hours spent walking to work or to school or while doing errands Figure 10: Typical Week in the Past Three Months, A Walkable Community 11 Figure 10: Typical Hours Week Spent in the Cy clinPastg toThree Work Months, or to School or Doing Errands 100Hours Spent Cycling to Work or to School or Doing Errands 100 82.2 80 82.2 80 60 60

Percent 40

Percent 40 20 5.7 9.2 20 2.4 0.5 5.7 9.2 0 2.4 0.5 0 None Less than 1 hour 1‐5 hours 6‐10 hours Greater than 10 None Less than 1 hour 1‐5 hours 6‐10 hours Greater than 10hours hours Hours spent cycling to work or to school or while doing errands Hours spent cycling to work or to school or while doing errands Figure 8: Over a Typical Week, the Number of Days Physically Active for a Total of At Least 60 Minutes per Day

30 28.1 25

20 17.4 12.9 15 11.9 10.3 Percent 9.6 10 4 5.8 5

0 0 days 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days Days physically active for at least 60 minutes/day over a typical week

Figure 9: Typical Week in the Past Three Months, Hours Spent Walking to Work or to School or Doing Errands 40 26.3 32.1 30 17.5 20 13

Percent 11.1 10 SECTION THREE: Results 0 None Less than 1 hour 1‐5 hours 6‐10 hours Greater than 10 hours Hours spent walking to work or to school or while doing errands Cycling Figure 10: Typical Week in the Past Three Months, Respondents spent even less time HoursFigure Spent 10: Typical Cycling Week to Work,in the PastSchool Three or Months,Doing Errands cycling to work, to school or while doing Hours Spent Cycling to Work or to School or Doing Errands 100 errands during a typical week. Approxi- 82.2 mately eighty-two percent of respondents 80

(n=242) reported spending no time per- 60 forming these activities, while the greatest proportion of respondents who did report Percent 40 cycling spent between one and five hours 20 5.7 9.2 (9.2%, n=27) (see Figure 10). 2.4 0.5 0 None Less than 1 hour 1‐5 hours 6‐10 hours Greater than 10 Summary of Physical Activity Levels hours Respondents’ reports of physical activity HoursHours spent spent cycling cycling to towork work, or schoolto school or orwhile while doing doing errands. errands are summarized in the following table.

Table 3: Physical Activity Levels Sample Percent Size (N=295) Number of days physically active for a total of at least 60 minutes per day, typical week 0 11.9 35 1 4.0 12 2 10.3 31 3 12.9 38 4 9.6 28 5 17.4 51 6 5.8 17 7 28.1 83 Total 100 295 Hours spent walking to work, to school or while doing errands, typical week None 26.3 77 Less than 1 hour 11.1 32 1-5 hours 32.1 93 6-10 hours 17.5 51 Greater than 10 hours 13 38 Total 100 291 Hours spent cycling to work, to school or while doing errands, typical week None 82.2 242 Less than 1 hour 5.7 17 1-5 hours 9.2 27 6-10 hours 2.4 7 Greater than 10 hours 0.5 2 Cayuga, ON Total 100 295

12 A Walkable Community SECTION THREE: Results

3.3 Knowledge of a Figure 11:Figure Knowledge 11: Knowledge of a of Walkable a Walkable Community Community

Walkable Community 50 41.041 Forty-one percent of respondents (n=121) 40 said they were familiar with the term 32.2 “walkable community,” while only 16.2% 30 16.2

(n=48) indicated that they were familiar Percent 20 with the walkON program. Thirty-two 10 percent of respondents (n=95) had heard of the term “walkable community” and 0 were able to identify correctly at least one Familiar with the term "walkable Familiar with walkON Heard of term and correctly identified community" at least 1 of 5 components of its five components (see Figure 11). Knowledge When asked where they saw or heard about walkON, the highest proportion of Data notes: (1) Percentages do not add up to 100. respondents said the newspaper (24.4%, n=12). Figure 12: What a Walkable Community Meant to Respondents Figure 12: What a Walkable Community Meant to Respondents

When respondents were asked what 30 a walkable community meant to them, 19.8 the most common response was “places 20 11.0 12.6 within walking distance” (19.8% of respon- 11 4.0 Percent 10 dents, n=58). Respondents’ knowledge of 5.5 the other components of a walkable com- 4 munity is outlined in Figure 12. 0 Places within walking Walking in general/ for Walk instead of using Paths/ trails/ sidewalks Safety (safe distance exercise car/ walk for communities, etc.) 3.4 Attitudes Toward a transportation Data notes: (1) Percentages do not add up to 100. Walkable Community What respondents said a walkable community meant to them

Components of a Neighbourhood that Figure 13: Components of a Neighbourhood that Affect Decisions of Where to Live Affect Decisions of Where to Live Figure 13 : Components o f a Neighbourhood that Affect Decisions of Where to Live Respondents were asked about the 80 71.6 importance of the components of a walk- 100 able community when deciding where to 61.8 60 87 live. The most important components 50.6 80 affecting decisions of where to live were: 71.6 40.4 40.1 38.7 1. Having sidewalks and pathways 40 61.8 Percent that are connected (71.6%, 60

n=203). 20 2. Living within a five- to 10-minute walk of parks (61.8%, n=180). 0 3. Living within a five- to 10-minute Connected 5‐ to 10‐ minute walk to 5‐ to 10‐ minute walk to 5‐ to 10‐ minute walk to Walking or cycling 5‐ to 10‐ minute walk to walk to stores and restaurants sidewalks/paths parks stores and restaurants schools distance to work public transportation Respondents who identified the neighbourhood characteristic as (50.6%, n=73). ""very iimportant" t t" or ""somewhat h t iimportant" t t" whenh ddeciding idi whereh tto lilive

Data notes: (1) Scale options: very important, somewhat important, not very important and not at all important. Figure 13 displays these and other fac- (2) Percentages do not add up to 100. tors, along with their level of importance when deciding where to live.

A Walkable Community 13 SECTION THREE: Results

Factors Not Essential to Figure 14: Additional Factors Affecting Decision on Where to Live Walkable Communities 100 Respondents were also asked about the 87.087 84.7 80.4 importance of three other qualities when 80 deciding where to live. Having a sense of 60 50.6 belonging (87.0%, n=252), having a big 60

Percent 40.4 40.1 yard or garden (84.7%, n=248) and living Percent 38.7 40 in a neighbourhood with little or no traffic 40 (80.4%, n=232) were all important qualities considered by respondents when deciding 20 20 where to live (see Figure 14). Please note Sense of belonging Having a big backyard or garden Little or no traffic that the qualities “big backyard or garden” 0 and “little or no traffic” are elusive terms Sense of belongingRespondents Connected who5‐ to identified10‐ minute the5‐ toneighbourhood 10‐ minute 5‐ characteristicto 10‐ minute Walking as or cycling 5‐ to 10‐ minute 'Verysidewalks/paths Important' orwalk 'Somewhat to parks Important'walk to stores when and decidingwalk to schools where todistance live to work walk to public that are subject to interpretation. restaurants transportation Data Notes: (1) Scale options: very important,Respondents somewhat who identified important, the neighbourhood not very important characteristic and not as at all important. "very important" or "somewhat important" when deciding where to live 3.5 How the Built (2) Percentages do not add up to 100. Environment Impacts Table 4: Factors of a Walkable Community that Could Affect Ability to be Physical Activity Physically Active: Town and Country Questions Figure 14 : Additional Factors Affecting Decision on Where to Live Respondents were asked how various Town elements of a walkable community could • Having stores, shops or restaurants within a five- to 10-minute walk of your affect their ability to be physically active. 100 home. 84.7 For this section of the survey, respon- 80.4 • Having80 parks within a five- to 10-minute walk of your neighbourhood. dents living in towns were asked different • Having sidewalks or pathways that are connected to each other. questions than those living in the country. • Having interesting things to look at. Table 4 lists the questions asked of re- 60

• HavingPercent roads, sidewalks and pathways that are in good condition. spondents based on their type of neigh- • Having well-lit roads, sidewalks and pathways at night. 40 bourhood (town or country). Country 20 • Having paved shoulders on both sides of the road. Town Respondents Having a big backyard Little or no traffic Elements of a walkable community that • Having trails or pathways within a five- to 10-minute walk or cycling distance of would most affect respondents’ ability to your home. Respondents who identified the neighbourhood characteristic as be physically active were: "very important" or "somewhat important" when deciding where to live

1. Having roads, sidewalks and FigureFigure 15: Components 15: Components of a of Neighbourhood a Neighbourhood that that Affect One’s Ability to be pathways that are in good Physically Active,Affect Town One’s RespondentsAbility to be Physically Active, Town Respondents condition (71.2%, n=124). 80 2. Having sidewalks and pathways 71.2 61.6 that are connected to each other 60 53.1 (61.6%, n=107). 46.4 44.3 41.1 40

These components are highlighted in Percent Figure 15, along with other elements of a 20 walkable community. 0 Roads, sidewalks Sidewalks or paths Well‐lit roads, Parks within 5‐ to Stores, shops or Interesting things Dunnville, ON and paths in good connected to each sidewalks paths at 10‐ minutes of restaurants a 5‐ to to look at condition other night neighbourhood 10‐ minute walk of home Respondents who identified the characteristics of a neighbourhood that could affect their ability to be physically active

Data notes: (1) Scale options: a lot, a little, not at all, not sure and refused. (2) Percentage of respondents who reported “a lot.” (3) Percentages do not add up to 100.

14 A Walkable Community SECTION THREE: Results

Figure 16 : Components of a Neighbourhood that Affect One’s Ability to be Physically Active, Country Respondents Country Respondents Figure 16: Components of a Neighbourhood that Affect One’s Ability to be Approximately forty percent of country Physically Active, Country Respondents respondents (39.6%, n=41) felt that having 45 trails or pathways within a five- to 10-min- 39.6 ute walk or cycling distance of home could 40 positively impact their physical activity, while only 33.2% (n=34) reported that hav- 35 ing paved shoulders on both sides of the 33.2 Percent road could positively impact their physical activity (see Figure 16). 30

3.6 Perceived Barriers to 25 Trails or paths within 5‐ to 10‐ minute walk or Paved shoulders on both sides of the road Creating a Walkable Community cycling distance of home

Respondents were asked about the Data notes: (1) Scale options: a lot, a little, not at all, not sure and refused. (2) Percentage of respondents who reported “a lot.” (3) Percentages do not add up to 100. presence of various neighbourhood Figure 17: Barriers to Creating a Walkable Community, Town Respondents components that would add to walkable Figure 16 : Components of a Neighbourhood that communities. For respondents who did Table60 5: Barriers to Creating a Walkable Community: Town and Country 55.1Affect One’s Ability to be Physically Active, Country Respondents not have each of these components in Questions their neighbourhood, they were asked how Respondents were asked45.6 about the addition45 of the following elements to their neigh- much they would oppose their additions. bourhood45 to improve walkability: Again, respondents were asked differ- 40 31.1 Town 39.6 29.1 ent questions depending on their type of 40 neighbourhood. These questions are listed Percent • Addition of sidewalks to both sides of the street. in Table 5. 20 • Addition of new types of housing (e.g., detached homes, townhouses, 35 apartments, etc.). 33.2 Percent Town Respondents • Addition of stores, shops or restaurants within a five- to 10-minute walk. • 30Having guidelines for the development of commercial and municipal spaces. Town respondents were most opposed to 0 • The addition of sidewalks or pathways to connect streets. adding: Adding new types of Addition of stores, Adding sidewalks Guidelines for Creating sidewalks or 1. New types of housing (55.1%, Country25 housing shops or restaurants developing paths to connect n=43). Trails or paths within 5‐ to 10‐ minute walk or Pavedcommercial shoulders on and both sides ofstreets the road municipal space 2. Stores, shops or restaurants • Addition of pavedcycling distanceshoulders of home to both sides of the road. • Addition of trails or pathways to your neighbourhood or community. (45.6%, n=22). Respondents' opposition to the addition of walkable community components 3. Sidewalks on both sides of the Figure 17: Barriers to Creating a Walkable Community, Town Respondents street (45%, n=60) (see Figure 17). Figure 17: Barriers to Creating a Walkable Community, Town Respondents Figure 18: Barriers to Creating a Walkable Community, Country Respondents 60 55.1 50 45.645.6 45.045

40 40 31.1 29.1 Percent 28.8 3020 Percent

200 Adding new types of Addition of stores, Adding sidewalks Guidelines for Creating sidewalks or housing shops or restaurants developing paths to connect 10 commercial and streets municipal space Respondents' opposition to the addition of walkable community components

Data notes: (1) Options: strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose and strongly oppose. (2) Respondents who stated “somewhat” or “strongly opposed.” (3) Data points: Opposed guidelines... (31.1%, n=8); Opposed creating sidewalks... (29.1%, n=24). (4) Percentages do not add up to 100. Simcoe Park, Simcoe ON Figure 18: Barriers to Creating a Walkable Community, Country Respondents

50 45.6 A Walkable Community 15

28.8 30 Percent

10 SECTION THREE: Results

Country Respondents Figure 18: Barriers to Creating a Walkable Community, Country Respondents Approximately forty-six percent (45.6%, 50 n=42) of country respondents were op- 45.6 posed to adding paved shoulders to both sides of the road, while 28.8% (n=12) 40 were opposed to adding trails or pathways to their neighbourhood or commu- 28.8 nity (see Figure 18). 30 Percent

10 Adding paved shoulders to both sides of the road Adding trails or pathways

Respondents' opposition to the addition of walkable community components

Data notes: (1) Options: strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose and strongly oppose. (2) Respondents who stated “somewhat” or “strongly opposed.” (3) Percentages do not add up to 100.

Table 6: Summary Table Most important component of walkable communities affecting one’s ability to be active For respondents living in a town: • Having roads, sidewalks and pathways that are in good condition. For respondents living in the country: • Having trails or pathways within five- to 10-minute walk or cycling distance of home. Barriers to creating walkable communities For respondents living in a town: • The addition of new types of housing. For respondents living in the country: Caledonia, ON • The addition of paved shoulders to both sides of the road.

Pier, Port Dover, ON Walker St. Port Dover, ON

16 A Walkable Community SECTION ONE: Introduction & Background Adding paved shoulders to both sides of the road Adding trails or pathways

Adding pavedRespondents' shoulders to bothopposition sides of to the the road addition of walkable communityAdding trails components or pathways

Respondents' opposition to the addition of walkable community components 3.7 Data by Demographics Figure 19:Figure Percentage 19: Percentage of Women of Women and and Men Men who Were Familiar with the Term The following section of the report pres- “Walkable Community”who Were Familiar with the Term "Walkable Community" ents significant comparisons for selected Figure 19: Percentage of Women and Men 50 who Were Familiar with the Term "Walkable Community" demographic variables: sex, age, county 46.5 50 and children at home. Variables were 40 46.5 analyzed for differences in knowledge and 40 30.8 attitudes. 30 30.8 30 Sex Percent 20 n Knowledge Significantly more women than men were Percent 20 10 familiar with the term “walkable community” (46.5% vs. 30.8%) (see Figure 19). 10 0 Women Men 0 n Attitudes Sex of sample Sex had no effect on attitudes toward a Women Men Data Notes: (1) Data points: women, n=92; men, n=29. (2) c2 (1, N=292) = 6.40, p<0.05. Sex of sample walkable community. (3) Percentages do not add up to 100. Figure 20: Were Familiar with the Term "Walkable Community" Age and Correctly Identified One Component, By Age Group Figure 20:Figure Were 20: Familiar Were Familiar with withthe Termthe Term “Walkable "Walkable Community” Community" and Correctly n Knowledge Identified50 One Component,and Correctly Identified By Age One Group Component, By Age Group The age 41 to 63 group had the largest 39.1 amount of respondents who were familiar 5040 30.6 39.1 with the term “walkable community” and 4030 nt e could correctly identify at least one of its 30.6 20

Percent 3020 nt components. Significant differences did e 20.020 exist among age groups. Figure 20 dis- Percent 2010 plays the differences by age groups. 100 18‐40 41‐63 64 plus n Attitude 0 When deciding where to live, significant 18‐40 Age of sample41‐63 64 plus age differences were noted for the follow- Age of sample ing factors: • Being within a five- to 10-minute walk Data Notes: (1) Data points: age 18-40, n=19; age 41-63, n=59; age 64 plus, n=14. (2) c2 (2, N= 283) = 8.06, p<0.05. (3) Percentages do not add up to 100. of public transportation. • Being within a five- to 10-minute walk of stores and restaurants. • Being within walking or cycling distance of your place of work (p<0.05).

Dunnville, ON

A Walkable Community 17 SECTION THREE: Results

Figure 21 : Respondents Stating That Being Within 5 to 10 Minutes of PublicFigure Transportation 21 : Respondents is Important Stating When That BeingMakin Withing a Decision 5 to 10 About Minutes Where of to Live, Figure 21: Respondents Stating That Being Within 5- to 10-minutes of Public Trans- Walking Distance of Pulic By APublicge Group Transportation is Important When Making a Decision About Where to Live, Transportation portationBFigurey A gise 21ImportantGroup : Respondents When MakingStating That a Decision Being Within About 5 Where to 10 Minutes to Live, of By Age Group More specifically, a higher proportion of 80 Public Transportation is Important When Making a Decision About Where to Live, 80By Age Group respondents age 64 and older (57.4%, n=35) said that being within a five- to 80 57.457.4 60 60 10-minute walk of public transportation 57.4 was important to consider when deciding 60 37.4 where to live compared to the other age 40 40

Percent 37.4 groups (age 18-40: 22.0%, n=13; age Percent 40 22.022 41-63 : 37.4%, n=55) (see Figure 21). 22 Percent 20 20 22 Walking Distance of Stores and 20 0 Restaurants 0 18‐40 41‐63 64 plus As well, a higher proportion of respon- 0 18‐40 Age of41 sample‐63 64 plus dents age 64 and older (66.7%, n=46) 18‐40 41‐63 64 plus said that being within a five- to 10-min- Data Notes: (1) c2 (2, N=267) = 15.99, p<0.05. (2) ScaleAge options:of sample very important, somewhat important, not very important andFigure not at all 22 important. : Respondents (3) Respondents Stating who ThatreportedAge ofBeing sample “very important”Within a or 5 “somewhatto 10 minute important.” Walk (4) o Percentf - ute walk of stores and restaurants was ages do not add up to 100. FigureStores 22 : and Respondents Restaurants Stating is Important That When Being Making Within a Decisiona 5 to 10 Abou minutet Where Walk to o Livef important to consider when deciding Figure 22 : Respondents Stating That Being Within a 5 to 10 minute Walk of FigureStoresStores 22: and Respondents and Restaurants Restaurants Stating is is Important Important That Being When Within Making Making a 5- a toaDecision Decision10-minute Abou Abou Walkt Wheret ofWhere Stores to Live to Live where to live compared to the other age 80 and Restaurants is Important When Making a Decision About Where to Live groups (age 18-40: 36.1%, n=22; age 66.7 41-63: 47.7%, n=72). These differences 80 80 are displayed in Figure 22. 60 66.766.7 47.7 60 60 36.1 Walking or Cycling Distance of 40 47.7 47.7 Place of Work Percent 36.1 Finally, a higher proportion of respon- 40 36.1 40 dents age 64 and older (47.6%, n=20) Percent 20 Percent said that being within walking or cycling 20 distance to their place of work was im- 20 0 portant to consider when deciding where 18‐40 41‐63 64 plus to live compared to the other age groups 0 Age of sample (age 18-40: 26.2%, n=16; age 41-63: 18‐40 41‐63 64 plus Figure 23:0 Respondents Stating That Being Within Walking or Cycling Distance Age of sample 42.2%, n=57 (see Figure 23). to Their Place of Work18‐40 is Important When41‐63 Making a Decision64 plus About Where to Live, 2 Data Notes:BFigurey A (1)ge c 23:Group (2, NRespondents=281) = 12.73, p <0.05.Stating (2) AgeScaleThat of options: Beingsample very Within important, Walking somewhat or Cycling important, Dista not verynce impor - tant andto not Their at all important.Place of (3) Work Respondents is Important who reported When “very Making important” a Decision or “somewhat Abou important.”t Where to Live, (4) Percentages do not add up to 100. FigureBy A23:ge60 Group Respondents Stating That Being Within Walking or Cycling Distance Figureto Their 23: RespondentsPlace of Work Stating is Important That Being When Within Making Walking a orDecision Cycling47.6 DistanceAbout Where to Their to Live, 60 PlaceBy A gofe WorkGroup is Important When Making a Decision42.2 About Where to Live, By Age Group 40 47.6 42.2 60 26.2 40

Percent 47.6 20 26.2 42.2 Percent 40 20 0 26.2 18‐40 41‐63 64 plus Percent 20 0 Age of sample 18‐40 41‐63 64 plus Age of sample 0 18‐40 41‐63 64 plus Age of sample

Data Notes: (1) c2 (2, N=238) = 6.08, p<0.05. (2) Scale options: very important, somewhat important, not very important and not at all important. (3) Respondents who reported “very important” or “somewhat important.” (4) Percentages do not add up to 100. Marshall Ln., Simcoe, ON

18 A Walkable Community SECTION THREE: Results FigureFigure 24: 24: Familiar Familiar with with the the Term Term "Walkable "Walkable Community," Community," By By Coun Counttyy Figure 24: Familiar with the Term "Walkable Community," By County

County Figure 24: Familiar with the Term “Walkable Community,” By County n Knowledge 60 60 60 Compared to Haldimand residents, signifi- 48.248.2 cantly more residents of Norfolk County 48.2 40 were familiar with the term “walkable 40 33.633.6 40 community” (48.2%, n=79 vs. 33.6%, 33.6 Percent

n=41) and had either seen or heard about Percent 20 walkON (21.8%, n=36 vs. 9.8%, n=12) 20Percent 20 (see Figures 24 and 25).

0 n Attitude 0 0 Significantly more Norfolk residents than NorfolkNorfolk HaldimandHaldimand Norfolk Haldimand County Haldimand residents indicated that being County within a five- to 10-minute walk of public County transportation was important when decid- DataFigure Notes: (1)25: c2 (1,Familiar N=286) = With6.09, p walkON,<0.05. (2) Percentages By Count do ynot add up to 100. ing where to live (45.5%, n=70 vs. 30.5%, FigureFigure 25: 25: Familiar Familiar With With walkON, walkON, By By Count Countyy n= 36) (see Figure 26). Although there is Figure 25: Familiar With walkON, By County 30 no public transportation available in either 30 30 county, it still is an important factor for respondents when deciding where to live. 21.8 21.821.8 20 20 20

Percent 9.8 Percent Percent 10 9.89.8 10 10

0 0 0 Norfolk Haldimand County NorfolkNorfolk HaldimandHaldimand County Data Notes: (1) c2 (1, N=287) = 7.23, p<0.05. (2)County Percentages do not add up to 100. Figure 26: Respondents Stating That Being Within 5 to 10 Minutes of Public FigureFigureTransportationFigure 26:26: 26: Respondents Respondents is "Important" Stating Stating Stating When That That That Makin Being Being Beingg aWithin DecisionWithin Within five 5 5 Aboutto to 10 10 MinutesWhereMinute Minute toss of Live,ofof Public PublicPublic By Count y TransportationTransportationTransportation is is "Important"is “Important” "Important" When WhenWhen Makin MakinMakingg ga a Decisiona Decision Decision About About About Where Where Where to to Live,Live,to Live, BByy ByCountCount y County Townsend, ON 60 60 60 45.5 45.5 40 45.5 40 30.5 40 30.5 30.5 Percent 20 Percent

Percent 20 20

0 0 Norfolk Haldimand 0 Norfolk Haldimand Norfolk County Haldimand County County

Date Notes: (1) c2 (1, N=272) = 6.28, p<0.05. (2) Scale options: very important, somewhat important, not very important and not at all important. (3) Respondents who reported “very important” or “somewhat important.” (4) Percentages do not add up to 100.

Lynn Valley Trail, Simcoe, ON

A Walkable Community 19 SECTION THREE: Results

Figure 27: Respondents Stating That Living in a Neighbourhood With Little or No Traffic Was Important When Deciding Where to Live, By County Conversely, more Haldimand than Figure 27: Respondents Stating That Living in a Neighbourhood With Little or No Norfolk residents indicated that living in a Traffic Was Important When Deciding Where to Live, By County neighbourhood with little or no traffic was 100 important when deciding where to live (86.2%, n=106 vs. 76.9%, n=123) (see 86.2 Figure 27). 76.9 80 Children at Home Percent n Knowledge Whether or not respondents had children 60 under the age of 18 living at home did Haldimand Norfolk not significantly influence their knowledge County about a walkable community. Data Notes: c2 (1, N=283) = 3.90, p<0.05. (2) Scale options: very important, somewhat important, not very important and not at all important. (3) Respondents who reported “very important” or “somewhat important.” n Attitude (4) Percentages do not add up to 100. Whether or not respondents had children under the age of 18 living at home did not significantly influence their attitudes about a walkable community.

20 A Walkable Community SECTION FOUR: Limitations

Section Four: Limitations

This study has some limitations. The Survey questions were not standard- to improve clarity and flow, there is still survey response rate is quite low (29.4%), ized but rather created for the purpose concern with respondents’ subjectivity in raising questions about the representa- of this study. Although the initial survey question interpretation. This limits the reli- tiveness of the data. was piloted and questions were changed ability and validity of responses.

A distinction was made between respondents who lived in a city, town, hamlet or small village and those who lived in a country setting, which included farms, residential estate homes and the countryside. This was done as different factors relating to a walkable community are more significant to each type of setting. Although this idea is important, the criteria set forth to make this distinction were problematic. No concrete definitions were provided for the different options (e.g., residential estate homes, residents resid- ing on the outskirts of a town or small village, etc.). Responses were based on respondents’ subjective judgement, and this could limit the validity of the results.

Haldimand and Norfolk Counties are both considered rural; however, the survey was limited in questions for rural respondents (see Appendix A). For ques- BEFORE: Queensway East, Simcoe, ON tions relating to knowledge of how the built environment impacts health and barriers to creating a walkable community, rural respondents were only asked about two factors: paved shoulders on both sides of the road, and trails and paths within a five- to 10-minute walk or cycling distance of their houses.This limits the scope of our understanding of a walkable community in our rural setting.

Any survey response is open to certain errors and biases. One type in particular, a social desirability bias is the tendency for people to report in a manner that is socially acceptable. A possible example of this bias in the current survey is the overestimation of respondent’s physical activity levels.

AFTER: Queensway East, Simcoe, ON

A Walkable Community 21 SECTION FIVE: Summary & Discussion

SECTION FIVE: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This survey was intended to explore the that meant, “Having places within walking forward with their campaigns. The age 64 public’s understanding of a walkable distance” was the most frequent and cor- and older group appeared more con- community. More specifically, the survey rect response given. More women than cerned with the existence of components was designed to determine: men were familiar with the term “walk- of walkable communities when deciding 1. The public’s knowledge about able community,” as were more Norfolk where to live compared to respondents walkable communities and than Haldimand residents. Finally, more in the other age groups. Not only was walkON. respondents from the age 41 to 63 group this age group more knowledgeable, but 2. The public’s attitudes toward were familiar with the term and knowl- it is plausible that walking may be their walkable communities. edgeable compared to the other age main or only form of transportation, and a 3. What the public knows about groups. walkable community is key to maintaining how the built environment quality in their lives. impacts physical activity. The second objective was to determine 4. What the public’s perceived the public’s attitudes toward walk- The third objective was to determine barriers are in the development able communities. The most important what the public knows about how the of walkable communities. component of a walkable community that built environment impacts physical activ- respondents considered when decid- ity. Overall, respondents living in a town, The analysis provides useful information ing where to live was having connected hamlet or small village reported that the that will assist in implementing campaigns sidewalks and paths. Also, a large major- most important component of a walkable and programs at our local level. The first ity of respondents placed high value on community affecting their ability to be objective of the study was to determine having a big yard or garden and living in a physically active would be having roads, the public’s knowledge about a walkable neighbourhood with little or no traffic. As sidewalks and paths that are in good community. Less than half of respondents neither of these components supports a condition. The importance respondents (41%) were familiar with the term “walk- walkable community, promoters and plan- placed on connected sidewalks and able community,” and when asked what ners need to consider this as they move paths that are in good shape is echoed

22 A Walkable Community SECTION FIVE: Summary & Discussion

these trails. • Both counties have created their own trail master plans. These plans are in place to assess the current status of trails and identify opportunities for future trails and linkages. As well, these plans will encourage the development of related policies and recommendations regarding ownership, roles and responsibilities. • Separate groups in each county, Norfolk Pathways for People and Caledonia on the Move, have formed to enhance walkable communities. Through different methods, these groups of citizens advocate for and promote existing paths and the creation of new ones. In addition to these functions, Norfolk Pathways for People also works at a policy level to bring about positive change.

The Health Unit has also implemented many campaigns to advance walking and cycling in our communities. One component of the iCANwalk campaign, for example, offers checklists for people to rate their communities and identify problem areas. This information can then be brought to the attention of the ap- propriate municipal departments so that improvements can be made. There have also been snow clearing campaigns and campaigns targeting specific segments of Lynn Valley Trail, Simcoe, ON the population to promote walking. in their reports of factors that are impor- Opposition from respondents living in the Extensive bike safety campaigns have tant when deciding where to live. Re- country would come from the addition also occurred. These campaigns have spondents living in the country reported of paved shoulders on both sides of the included partnerships with the police, that having trails or paths close to home road. It is plausible that respondents may politicians, cycling clubs, farmers, gov- would impact their physical activity. Trails see this as neither a practical nor benefi- ernment agencies, the Health Unit and or paths would offer a safe opportunity for cial way of spending financial resources to others. Some of the activities that have walking and cycling rather than using the make their communities more walkable. occurred include presentations, posters, shoulder of a country road or highway. equipping bikes with safety features and Walkability is about the built environ- the distribution of reflective vests and arm The fourth objective was to determine ment; it needs to support walking and cy- bands, DVDs and Ministry of Transporta- the public’s perceived barriers in the cling for everyday purposes. Haldimand tion bike safety booklets. development of walkable communities. and Norfolk Counties have already carried Respondents living in a town, hamlet out many walkable community initiatives: The analysis included in this report or small village were most opposed to • Trails have been created in both has guided the creation of the following adding new types of housing, such as de- counties to offer safe and enjoyable recommendations. While great work has tached homes, townhouses, apartments walking and cycling opportunities. occurred in our communities, continued and condominiums in their neighbour- The counties, in partnership with efforts are necessary to create active hoods. Residents may feel that this could the Health Unit, have created and communities with residents walking and create more traffic in their community. published trail guides to promote cycling on a daily basis.

A Walkable Community 23 SECTION SIX: Recommendations

SECTION SIX: RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Continue to increase awareness and knowledge and promote walkable communities in both counties.

2. Encourage the age 64 and older group to advocate for walkable communities.

3. Promote walkable communities in the younger populations.

4. Promote and communicate survey results (e.g., the need for sidewalks, places to walk to, etc.) to county departments and stakeholders.

5. Enhance partnerships among county departments (e.g., roads, public works, tourism, economic development, etc.) so that collaborative and creative solutions can be designed to improve walking and cycling conditions.

6. Further explore walkable communities in rural settings and promote local findings.

7. Use the findings from this report to inform presentations and message development on walkable communities for Haldimand and Norfolk Counties.

24 A Walkable Community REFERENCES

References Abelsohn, A., Bray R., Vakil C. & Elliott, D. (2005). Handy, S.l., Boarnet, M.G., Ewing, R. & Littman, T. (1999). Evaluating traffic calming Report on public health and urban sprawl in Killingsworth, R.E. (2002). How the built benefits, costs and equity impacts. Victoria Ontario: A review of the pertinent literature. environment affects physical activity: Views Transport Policy Institute. Ontario College of Family Physicians. from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2 suppl s), 64-73. Statistics Canada (2009). Haldimand and Norfolk Bray, R., Vakil, C. & Elliott, D. (2005). Report health unit community profiles. Retrieved on public health and urban sprawl in Hart, L.G., Larson, E.H. & Lishner, D.M. (2005). December 30, 2009, from http://www12. Ontario: A review of the pertinent literature. Rural definitions of health policy and statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp- Environmental Health Committee, Ontario research. American Journal of Public Health, pd/prof/92-591/details/Page.cfm?Lang=E& College of Family Physicians. 95 (7), 1149-1155. Geo1=HR&Code1=3534&Geo2=PR&Cod e2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=Haldima Central West walkON Coordinating Committee. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario (2010). nd-Norfolk&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR (2009). Walkable Communities: Exploring Getting active for life. Your guide to an =35&B1=All&Custom=. public knowledge, attitudes, and barriers. active lifestyle. Retrieved February 18, 2010, Retrieved July 2, 2010 from http://www. from http://www.heartandstroke.com/atf/ walkON (2009). What is a walkable community? walkon.ca/files/CW%20walkON%20 cf/%7B99452D8B-E7F1-4BD6-A57D- Retrieved February 16, 2010 from http:// Walkability%20Survey%20Report%20 B136CE6C95BF%7D/Get_Active_For_Life- www.walkon.ca/what-walkable-community. Final%20Nov.%2020,%202009.pdf. English.pdf

Frank, L.D. & Engelke, P.O. (2001). The built Humpel, N., Owen, N. & Leslie, E. (2002). environment and human activity patterns: Environmental factors associated with adults’ exploring the impacts of urban form on participation in physical activity: A review. public health. Journal of Planning Literature, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16 (2), 202-218. 22(3), 188-199.

Frank, L.D., Schmid, T. L., Sallis, J.F., Chapman, Humphrey, N. P. et al. (2005). Does the built J. & Saelens, B.E. (2005). Linking objectively environment influence physical activity?: measured physical activity with objectively Examining the evidence [TRB Special measured urban form: Findings from Report 282]. Transportation Research SMARTAQ. American Journal of Preventive Board Institute of Medicine of the National Medicine, 28 (2 suppl s), 117-125. Academies.

A Walkable Community 25 Appendix A

Walk On Survey Central West Ontario Health Units Conducted by UW Survey Research Centre Summer 2007

A: Introduction. A3. Concerns Hello my name is ______and I am calling from the Read as needed. University of Waterloo on behalf of the ______public health unit. We are conducting a short 10 minute research survey More Info about Survey about neighbourhoods and health. This survey is being conducted by 7 central west Ontario health units to collect data on public knowledge and attitudes towards I’d like to speak to the adult who is at least 18 years old and built environments and health. It will help health unit staff to whose birthday is coming up next. Would that be you? develop a public information campaign about neighbourhoods, physical activity and walkable communities. • If Yes: go to consent • If No: May I speak with this person now? Ethics Please be assured that all data is confidential and no names or • If Yes: go to consent addresses are collected. If you have any questions about your • If No: Is there a better time to reach them? Set up callback. participation in this survey please contact Dr. Susan Sykes at the University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics at (519) 888- If query birthday method: 4567 ext 36005. We need to select someone at random. With each call we make, we ask to speak to the person whose birthday is coming Asks for more information/Health Unit up next. This helps us to ensure that we have a representative Ask for health unit. Use paper copy of contact names. sample as some groups of people are less likely to answer the Your contact at ______health unit is ______at ______. phone. Please feel free to contact them with any questions you may have.

A2. Consent1 Do you have a few minutes to speak with me now? Your answers are important to us, and will be used to help the health unit develop public health programs and services. We • If Yes: Thank you. Go to health unit screener. have received clearance from the University of Waterloo Office • If No: When in the next day or two can we call you back? of Research Ethics. The survey will take about 10 minutes to The survey only takes about 10 minutes. Set up callback or complete, and your answers will be kept confidential. We are not go to refusal. asking for your name or address. You do not have to answer any • If Refused: Thank you for your time. Good bye. questions you don’t want to. This call may be monitored by my supervisor to assess my performance.

Do you have a few minutes to speak with me now?

• If Yes: Thank you. Go to health unit screener. • If No: When in the next day or two can we call you back? The survey only takes about 10 minutes. Set up callback or go to refusal. • If Refused: Thank you for your time. Good bye. • If Concerns: go to A3

26 A Walkable Community Appendix A

Screen for Health Unit m Pelham If Waterloo: Which of the following QA1. Could you please confirm for m West Lincoln places best describes the municipality in me, the county or region in which you m Wainfleet which you live… live? Is it… m Port Colborne m City of Waterloo Prompt: (If respondent unsure, use list of m Fort Erie m City of Cambridge municipalities.) m Welland m City of Kitchener m Brant County m Township of Wilmot m Waterloo If Haldimand-Norfolk: Which of the m Township of Wellesley m Halton following places best describes the town- m Township of Woolwich m Haldimand–Norfolk ship in which you live… m Township of North Dumfries m Hamilton m Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Haldimand County Townships AB: Knowledge about m Niagara m Caledonia Walkable Communities m Other (out of sample) – I’m sorry, m Cayuga this survey is not being conducted m Dunnville Thank you. I’m going to begin with a in your area. Thank you for your m Hagersville couple of general questions about neigh- time. Good bye. m Jarvis bourhoods and physical activity. m Townsend Health Unit Municipality AB1. In a typical week in the past If Halton: Which of the following places Norfolk County Townships 3 months, how many hours did you best describes the municipality in which m Simcoe usually spend walking to work or to you live ... (Read main choices, but stop m Waterford school or while doing errands? if respondent provides answer) m Port Dover Prompt: If last week was typical, think of m Burlington m Port Rowan last week. m Oakville m Delhi m None m Milton (includes: Bayside, m Courtland m less than 1 hour Cambelville, Moffat and m from 1-5 hours Nassagaweya) If Hamilton: Which of the following m from 6 -10 hours m Halton Hills (includes: Acton, places best describes the municipality in m from 11-20 hours Ashgrove, Ballinafad, Georgetown, which you live… m more than 20 hours Glen Williams, Limehouse, Norval, m Hamilton m don’t know and Stewarttown) m Flamborough m refused m Ancaster If Brant: Which of the following places m Stoney Creek AB2. In a typical week in the past best describes the municipality in which m Dundas 3 months, how many hours did you you live... (read first two only) m Glanbrook usually spend cycling to work or to m City of Brantford school or while doing errands? m County of Brant (includes Paris, If Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph: Do you m None Brantford Township, South live in Dufferin County, Wellington County m less than 1 hour Dumfries, St. George, Burford, or the City of Guelph? m from 1-5 hours Oakland, Onondaga, Scotland.) m Dufferin m from 6 -10 hours m Six Nations Native Reserve (out of m Wellington m from 11-20 hours sample) – I’m sorry, this survey is m City of Guelph m more than 20 hours not being conducted in your area. m don’t know Thank you for your time. Good bye. Help Screen: m refused Dufferin County: Amaranth, East Garaf- If Niagara: Which of the following places raxa, East Luther Grand Valley, Melanc- AB3. Have you ever read about or best describes the municipality in which thon, Mono, Mulmur, Orangeville, and heard of the term “walkable commu- you live… Shelburne nity”? m Grimsby Wellington County: Erin, Puslinch, Centre m Yes if yes, go to AB3a m Lincoln Wellington, Guelph/Eramosa, Mapleton, m No if no, go to section B m St. Catharines Minto, Wellington North m Niagara on the Lake m Niagara Falls m Thorold

A Walkable Community 27 SECTION ONE: Introduction & Background Appendix A

AB3an. What does a walkable com- m not at all important B7. Suppose you were making a munity mean to you? Check all that m not sure decision today about where to live, apply. Do not read list. m refused how important is it to be living in a Prompt: There is no right or wrong an- neighbourhood with little or no traffic swer. What comes to mind when you hear B3. What about being within a 5-10 – would you say…. “walkable community”? minute walk of stores and restau- m very important m Places are within walking distance rants? Is it… m somewhat important (shops, parks, restaurants, m very important m not very important schools, etc) m somewhat important m not at all important m Walking in general/walking for m not very important m not sure physical activity or exercise m not at all important m refused m Safety (including safe communities/ m not sure safety for pedestrians m refused B8. How about having a big yard or m Pathways/walkways/trails/ garden? Is it… sidewalks B4. Suppose you were making a de- m very important m Walk instead of using a car/walking cision today about where to live, how m somewhat important for transportation important is it to be within walking or m not very important m Other (specifiy) ______cycling distance of your place of work m not at all important m Not sure - would you say… m not sure m Refused m very important m refused m somewhat important B: Attitudes towards walkable m not very important B9. Finally, being within a 5-10 min- communities m not at all important ute walk of parks? Would you say… m not sure m very important Whether you live in the city or the coun- m refused m somewhat important try, neighbourhoods have many qualities m does not work/works from home m not very important that make them attractive and enjoyable (do not read) m not at all important places to live. The first few questions are m not sure about how some of these qualities affect B5. And having sidewalks and path- m refused your decision about where to live. Sup- ways that are connected to each pose you were making a decision today other so you can walk or cycle to BA1: Information about about where to live… places within your neighbourhood? Neighbourhood Is it… B1. How important is to be within a m very important Now I’d like to ask you about your neigh- 5-10 minute walk of public transpor- m somewhat important bourhood. tation – would you say very impor- m not very important BA1. Would you say that your neigh- tant, somewhat important, not very m not at all important bourhood is ... important, not at all important or are m not sure m located in the downtown centre or you not sure? m refused core of a city or town Prompt: If they say they live in the coun- m in a city or town, but not in the try: That’s fine, just answer thinking about B6. What about having a sense of downtown centre or core where you would choose to live. belonging; such as knowing your m outside of a city or town, including m very important neighbours? Is it… in the countryside go to F7B m somewhat important m very important m not sure m not very important m somewhat important m refused m not at all important m not very important m not sure m not at all important BA2. (if live outside of a city or town, m refused m not sure including the countryside) Which of m refused the following best describes where B2. What about being within a 5-10 you live: minute walk of schools, would you m on a farm say... m in a hamlet or a small village m very important m in an residential estate home m somewhat important m other (do not read) m not very important

28 A Walkable Community Appendix A SECTION ONE: Introduction & Background

Note: Skip for Sections C and D as fol- C2. How about having parks within a D: Barriers to walkable lows: 5-10 minute walk of your neighbour- communities • If BA1 = “in a downtown centre or hood, would you say a lot, a little, not core” or “in a city or down, but not at all, or are you not sure? Now I’d like to know your opinion about in the downtown centre or core” Ask m a lot changes that could be made to make section C and section D. m a little it easier to be physically active in your • If BA1 = “ outside of a city or town, m not at all neighbourhood. including the countryside” and BA2 m not sure Prompt: Physical activity refers to walking, = “ in a hamlet or a small village” ask m refused jogging, running, cycling, or in-line skating section C and section D within your neighbourhood • If BA1 = “outside of a city or town, C3. And having sidewalks or path- including the countryside” and BA2= ways that are connected to each D1 a) First, do you have sidewalks “on a farm” or “in a residential estate other so you can walk or cycle to on both sides of the streets in your home – ask “Country Questions” places within your neighbourhood? neighbourhood? • IfBA1= “not sure” or refused – Go to m a lot m yes section E m a little m no • if BA1= “outside a city or town, m not at all m not sure including the countryside” and BA2= m not sure m refused “other” – Go to section E. m refused b) If no, would you strongly sup- C: Level of knowledge about C4. Would you say having interesting port, somewhat support, somewhat how the built environment things to look at could affect you abil- oppose or strongly oppose adding impacts health ity to be physically active a lot, a little, sidewalks to both sides of the streets not at all, or are you not sure? in your neighbourhood? Now I’m going to ask you some questions m a lot m strongly support about how much you think your neigh- m a little m somewhat support bourhood can affect your ability to be m not at all m somewhat oppose physically active. For this question, physi- m not sure m strongly oppose cal activity refers to activities like walking, m refused m not sure jogging, running, cycling, or in-line skating m refused within your neighbourhood. C5. And having roads, sidewalks and Prompt: If respondent makes comment pathways that are in good condition, D2 a) Do you have a variety of hous- about ill health/disability/does not work for example, free from bumps and ing options such as: detached homes, out, clarify with: holes? townhouses, apartments and condo- For this portion of the survey, physically m a lot miniums in your neighbourhood? active means having a chance or op- m a little m yes portunity to be active. If there are further m not at all m no comments: We are not asking about your m not sure m not sure strength or ability. m refused m refused

C1. Would you say that having C6. Finally, would you say having well b) If no, would you strongly support, stores, shops or restaurants within a lit roads, sidewalks, and pathways at somewhat support, somewhat op- 5-10 minute walk of your home could night could affect your ability to be pose or strongly oppose adding new affect your ability to be physically ac- physically active a lot, a little, not at types of housing to your neighbour- tive a lot, a little, not at all, or are you all, or are you not sure? hood? not sure? m a lot m strongly support m a lot m a little m somewhat support m a little m not at all m somewhat oppose m not at all m not sure m strongly oppose m not sure m refused m not sure m refused m refused

A Walkable Community 29 SECTION ONE: Introduction & Background Appendix A

D3 a) Do you have stores, shops or D5 a) Streets are usually built on either CC2. Would you say that having restaurants within a 5-10 minute walk a grid system or a cul de sac system. paved shoulders on both sides of the of your neighbourhood? A grid system refers to a set of streets road could affect your ability to be m yes that cross one another, while a cul de physically active a lot, a little, not at m no sac system refers to a set of streets with all or are you not sure? m not sure intersections on one end and closed m a lot m refused turning areas on the other end. Is your m a little neighbourhood built on a grid or a cul de m not at all b) If no, would you strongly sac system, or a mixture, or neither? m not sure support, somewhat support, m grid m refused somewhat oppose or strongly oppose m cul de sac adding stores, shops or restaurants m mixture CC3a) Do you have trails or pathways to your neighbourhood? m neither within a 5-10 minute walking or cy- m strongly support m not sure cling distance of your home? m somewhat support m refused m Yes m somewhat oppose m No if no, go to 1b) m strongly oppose b) If cul de sac system or mixture: m not sure m not sure Would you strongly support, some- m refused m refused what support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose creating sidewalks CC3b) If no Would you strongly sup- D4 a) Are businesses, stores, shops, or pathways to connect the streets in port, somewhat support, somewhat city/town owned spaces and parks your neighbourhood more directly to oppose or strongly oppose adding designed to fit with the overall look one another? trails or pathways to your neighbour- and design or character of your m strongly support hood or community? neighbourhood? m somewhat support m strongly support Prompt: Character refers to the overall m somewhat oppose m somewhat support look, appeal and design of spaces m strongly oppose m somewhat oppose m yes m not sure m strongly oppose m no m refused m not sure m not sure m refused m refused Section CC: Country Questions CC4. Would you say that having trails b) If no, would you strongly sup- or pathways within a 5-10 minute port, somewhat support, somewhat Now I am going to ask you some ques- walking or cycling distance of your oppose or strongly oppose having tions about the roads and pathways in home could affect your ability to be guidelines for the development of your neighbourhood or community. physically active a lot, a little, not at commercial and municipal spaces in all or are you not sure? your neighbourhood? CC1.a) First, do you have paved m a lot m strongly support shoulders on both sides of the road in m a little m somewhat support your neighbourhood or community? m not at all m somewhat oppose m Yes m not sure m strongly oppose m No if no, go to 1b) m refused m not sure m not sure m refused m refused

CC1b) If no Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose adding paved shoulders to both sides of the road? m strongly support m somewhat support m somewhat oppose m strongly oppose m not sure m refused

30 A Walkable Community Appendix A SECTION ONE: Introduction & Background

E: Level of knowledge of Walk F1. Over the past 7 days, on how F7. What type of dwelling do you live On Campaign many days were you physically active in... for a total of 60 minutes or more per m detached house Now I’m going to ask you a few questions day? m semi-detached house about a public health project. m 0 days m attached house (townhouse) m 1 day m apartment building/condo building E1. Walk-On is a project that pro- m 2 days m mixed use building motes the development of communi- m 3 days m other (specify) ties that support walking, running, m 4 days m not sure jogging, cycling, and in-line skating m 5 days m refused as forms of transportation within m 6 days m retirement/nursing home/ seniors’s neighbourhoods and communities. m 7 days complex Have you ever seen or heard about Walk-On? F2. Over a TYPICAL week, on how many F8a. Were you born in Canada? m yes days were you physically active for a m Yes m no total of 60 minutes or more per day? m No m not sure m 0 days m refused m 1 day F8b. (if no to F8a.) In what year did m 2 days you first come to Canada to live? E2n. If yes to E1. Where did you see m 3 days ______or hear about Walk-On? Check all m 4 days that apply. Do not read list. m 5 days F9. Could you please tell me how m Newspaper m 6 days much income you and other mem- m Television m 7 days bers of your household received m Radio in the year ending December 31st m Print Materials (pamphlets, These last few questions are for statistical 2006, before taxes. Please include brochures, newsletter, flyers, purposes only. income FROM ALL SOURCES such magnet, mail, postcard, bills) as savings, pensions, rent, as well m Passive Visual Media (posters, F3. What is your gender? (Ask only if as wages. Was the total household signs, billboards, bus/transit/ unsure) income from all sources: Do not read subway ads, movie theatre, mall m Male brackets display) m Female m ...less than $20,000, m Word of Mouth (family, friends, m ...$20,000 to $30,000, (29,999) colleagues at work/school, etc) F4. In what year were you born? m ...$30,000 to $40,000, (39,999) m Internet/Website/On-line (includes ______m ...$40,000 to $50,000, (49,999) the health department website) m ...$50,000 to $60,000, (59,999) m Other (specify) ______F4b. How many adults over the age m ...$60,000 to $70,000, (69,999) m not sure of 18 are living in your household? m ...$70,000 to $80,000, (79,999) m refused ______m ...$80,000 to $90,000, (89,999) m ...$90,000 to $100,000, (99,999) F: Demographics F5. Do you have any children under m ...$100,000 to $120,000, (119,999) For the following questions, we are asking the age of 18 living in your house- m …Greater than $120,000 about all your physical activities, which hold? m Don’t know may include playing sports, jogging, m yes m Refused dancing, yoga, and lifting weights, as well m no as walking, cycling or in-line skating within Thank you for your time. If you would like your neighbourhood? F6. What is the highest level of more information, or to see the results of education you have obtained? (Do not the survey, the results will be posted in read) early 2008 at www.walkon.ca. m did not graduate from high school m graduated from high school If requested: provide contact info for m some post-high school education people without web access. m college/university diploma/degree m don’t know m refused

A Walkable Community 31