Ultimate Guide to Walkability Assessment Tools

The Ultimate Guide to
Walkability Assessment Tools
P R E S E N T E D B Y S T A T E O F P L A C E
1

Contents
1
2
3 - 4
5 - 2 5
2 6 - 2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Q U E S T I O N S T O A S K
A T T R I B U T E S T O A S S E S S
T O O L S
C O M P A R I S O N S
F I N A L A S S E S S M E N T
S O U R C E S
C O N T A C T U S

Introduction
"Walkabilityisameasureoftheeffectivenessofcommunitydesigninpromoting
walkingandbicyclingasalternativestodrivingcarstoreachshopping,schools,and
othercommondestinations.TheCentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention(CDC),
theWorldHealthOrganization(WHO),andotherhealthorganizationsadvocate
increasingthewalkabilityofcommunitiestopromotefitness,combatobesity,and
enhancesustainability."-Esri(1*)
Thepurposeofthis guide istocompare theseseven well-knownwalkability
assessmenttoolstohelpyouchoosetheonethatworksbestforyou!
WalkScore,StateofPlace,WalcInstitute'sWalkingAuditSurveyTool,
Walkonomics,AARPLivabilityIndex, CDC'sHealthierWorksiteInitiative
WalkabilityAuditTool,andMAPS-MiniSurvey.
1
There are five levels of "needs" that influence walkability:
Pleasurability, Comfort, Safety, Accessibility, & Feasibility (2)
*(1) refers to the source's citation number; please see reference list on last page of the guide

"Questions to Ask"
What kind of data is being collected?
How accurate a measure is it of built environment quality/features that impact
actual walking rates?
Can it be used as a benchmark/is it standardizable?
Does it help you understand why or why not an area is walkable?
Can it be used to measure the walkability of proposed projects?
Does it help you identify the best changes to make to increase walkability?
Does it help you implement changes to increase walkability?
How much does it cost?
What kind of support does it offer?
Below are nine key questions you should ask when
evaluating walkability assessment tools:
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Attributes to Assess
3
Urban design features and concepts measured: Features that the
tool creators consider contributors to a walkable environment.
Scale of Urban Design: Macro: statistical data and/or high-level data
typically collected via GIS (e.g., land uses) OR Micro: detailed, small-
scale features of built environment (e.g., benches).
Number of Data Points: The number of built environment features or
concepts assessed by the tool.
Data Sources: First-hand (e.g., in-person, crowdsourced, field
observations) vs. Second-data collection (e.g., big data, census)
Data Type: Objective/reliable (raters are trained to assess data in
the same way; data is not subject to interpretation) OR Subjective
Who Collects: Company or general public
Collection Time: Time required to collect the data.
Accuracy: How accurate/valid is the measure; is it tied to walking
rates and/or features empirically tied to walking
Below are key attributes you should assess to help you
evaluate the nine criteria:

Attributes to Assess (cont.)
4
Data Collection Method/Scoring: How data is obtained/processed
Standardizable: Repeatable results are obtainable.
National/International Benchmarking Capacity: Can be used to
benchmark the differences in walkability between two or more
geographic locations.
Appropriate Geographic Areas: In which geographic conditions does
the tool work the best.
Diagnostic Ability: Scoring process allows users to understand their
score/identifies why or why not a place is walkable
Forecasting Walkability: Can it measure future walkability (for
proposed built environment changes).
Calculates Economic ROI of Walkability Improvements: Can it
estimate the economic impact of changes in built environment.
Ability to Involve Community: Can the tool be used to engage
community and residents
Cost: How much it costs to use the tool.
Support: Who is there to help with questions.

Walk Score
5
Urban design features and concepts measured: Walk times to
amenities, Population Density, Block Length, Intersection Density (3)
Scale of Urban Design: Macro
Number of Data Points(3) : 4
Data Sources: Big Data (aggregated using GIS)
Data Type: Objective/Reliable
Who Collects: Walk Score
Collection Time: N/A
Accuracy: Studies show Walk Score is a good measure of walkability in
terms of density of amenities (8), but Walk Score tends to
overestimate the walkability of high access, low-income communities
(22), and misses certain variables likely to influence a person to walk,
such as crime, aesthetics or natural barriers. In other words, Walk
Score is not appropriate to assess the walkability of areas with
relatively low walkability (under 70 Walk Score) or areas with median
incomes less than 50% that of the national median income (8, 22)
3

Walk Score (cont.)
6
Data Collection Method/Scoring: Data is gathered from Google,
Education.com, Open Street Maps, the U.S. Census, Localeze, and
places added by the Walk Score user community. Points are
awarded based on the distance to amenities, and it measures
pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road
metrics such as block length and intersection density. A score
from 0-100 is assigned. (3)
Standardizable: Yes
National/International Benchmarking Capacity: Can serve to
benchmark the differences in walkability between various
geographic locations. Scores are publicly available nationwide. (8)
Appropriate Geographic Areas: Relatively walkable urban and
suburban areas; Limited utility for less walkable suburban areas,
rural areas, and low-income areas.
Diagnostic Ability: No

Walk Score (cont.)
7
Forecasting Walkability: No, but at extra cost, offers custom Data
Services that offer "Predictive Analysis": Walk Score analyzes an
area and a client's proposed changes to determine the likely
impact on the Walk Score for the specific location and surrounding
area. (4)
Calculates Economic ROI of Walkability Improvements: No
Ability to Involve Community: No
Cost: The tool outputs Walk Scores of individual streets (one at a
time) for free. Users must pay to access Walk Score data in bulk or
to integrate Walk Scores into other websites. The following paid
subscriptions are available:
- Widgets and APIs for websites: Free, Premuim ($100/month),
Enterprise (Custom cost) (5)
- Data Services: starts at $500 and increases depending on volume
and the nature of the work (e.g., $10K for custom Walk Scores for
270 neighborhoods (covering 1500 blocks)).
Support: - Free services: Contact form on website
- Paid Services: Team Representative

State of Place
8
Urban design features and concepts measured: Sidewalk width,
Crosswalks, Street trees, Amenities/Land Uses, Graffiti, Litter,
Bike lanes, Buffers, Shading, Curb Cuts, Street Furniture, Parking,
Signals, Signage & MORE...(7)
Scale of Urban Design: Macro & Micro
Number of Data Points: 290 (6)
Data Sources: First-hand data (collected by raters)
Who Collects: State of Place team or trained data collectors
Collection Time: 20-25 minutes per block
Accuracy: The State of Place Index is based on an objective audit
tool known as the Irvine Minnesota Inventory (IMI). It was
developed by a team of researchers at the University of California,
Irvine, and tested for reliability with help from researchers at the
University of Minnesota. The IMI is an objective measure of the
built environment features that impact physical activity and
recreational walking. (9) State of Place has 1.7M data points and
its algorithm gets smarter and more accurate as the database
grows. (23)

State of Place (cont.)
9
Data Collection Method/Scoring: Data is gathered by trained data
collectors using an app. The proprietary algorithm then aggregates
the 290 data points into an index from 0-100 that indicates how
walkable – convenient, safe, comfortable, and pleasurable – a
block, group of blocks, or neighborhood is. The State of Place
Index is broken down into ten sub-indices that measure ten urban
design dimensions: Form, Density, Connectivity, Proximity, Parks
& Public Spaces, Recreational Facilities, Ped & Bike Amenities,
Traffic Safety, Personal Safety, Aesthetics. Not all 290 measures
be present to obtain a score of 100. (10)
Standardizable: Yes
National/International Benchmarking Capacity: State of Place is
a standardizable measure of walkability and can be used to
benchmark walkability. The highest score is determined by the
highest observed score in the database of nearly two million data
points across 200 cities nation-wide. Scores are available for
limited geographies through a subscription service. (9)

1 0
Appropriate Geographic Areas: All. The IMI audit tool upon which
the State of Place Index is based was designed to be used across a
wide-range of areas, including urban, rural, exurban and rural
areas; low, medium, and high-income neighborhoods; residential,
mixed-use, and commercial areas; nationally and internationally
developed and developing countries. Not appropriate for
underdeveloped nations. (23)
Diagnostic Ability: Yes
Forecasting Walkability: Yes. Users can run multiple scenario
analyses to quantify how a development project would increase
the Index and also identify proposals with the biggest impact on
walkability and economic value. (7
Calculates Economic ROI of Walkability Improvements: Yes.
Users can forecast the estimated economic premiums of their
proposed projects, including retail, residential, and office rents as
well as retail revenues and residential for-sale values. (7)

Ability to Involve Community: Yes
Cost: Monthly subscriptions from $2K/month or fixed-fee project-
based subscriptions, which average about $25K per engagement,
depending on the number of blocks assessed and/or number of
additional custom reports.
Support: Dedicated Customer Support Manager
1 1

Walc Institute's Walking
Audit Survey Tool
Urban design features and concepts measured: Comfort, Safety,
Behaviors of pedestrians & vehicles, Sidewalks, Bike lanes, Vehicle
Travel Lanes, Driveways, Parking, Intersections, Crossings, Signals,
ADA Compliance, Lighting, Street Furniture, Landscaping, Land use,
Signage (20)
Scale of Urban Design: Micro
Data Type: Subjective
Who Collects: Anyone who wants to (20
Collection Time: 60-90 minutes per block (20)
Accuracy: The Walking Audit Survey tool was developed by the
Walc Institute, the EPA, the Project for Public Spaces, and AECOM.
The workbook guides community members and leaders through
organizing a walkability workshop, conducting a walking audit, and
documenting findings. The guide includes a facilitator's guide,
presentation slides, a collection of tools, and a walking audit
1 2

Audit Survey Tool (cont.)
Accuracy, cont.: survey tool. The goal of the survey legend is to
document your response to the built environment so that the
community and its leaders can decide what changes should be made
to improve their area. (20) While the workbook is very thorough,
there are no scores assigned to the features, so it would be
difficult to assess the accuracy or reliability of each person's
individual notes.
Data Collection Method/Scoring: Data is gathered by a trained or
untrained collectors in the community with paper/pencil. The
collector sketches the intersection and street, and s/he takes notes
as to how safe or comfortable s/he feels on block. The collector
then assesses the built environment on the block by marking Needs
Improvement, Adequate, or High Quality for the features listed
(e.g. sidewalk width, land maintenance, signal type, etc.). No points
are awarded; no overall score is assigned. (20)
Standardizable: No
1 3

Audit Survey Tool (cont.)
National/International Benchmarking Capacity: Because there
are no scores assigned, training is not mandatory for data
collection, and the collectors are encouraged to change the tool to
fit their needs (20), it would be very difficult to compare results
of the audit to various geographical areas. Data collected is not
publicly available.
Appropriate Geographic Areas: Various
Forecasting Walkability: No
Cost: Free for community to implement; paid consulting/advisory
services available
Support: Contact form on website
1 4

Walkonomics
Urban design features and concepts measured: Road safety, Easy
to cross, Sidewalks, Hilliness, Navigation, Fear of crime, Smart
and beautiful, Fun and relaxing (14)
Data Sources: First-hand data (collected by raters) & Big Data
Data Type: Objective & Subjective
Who Collects: Walkonomics and anyone who wants to (14)
Collection Time: About 10 minutes per block when
crowdsourcing data
Accuracy: Walkonomics' rating system is based on existing
research of factors that make a street walkable, and the key
factors were combined into eight categories. (13) If no data exists
for a particular category on a street, then an average rating of 2.5
is assigned. As there is also no auditing of the crowdsourced data,
its reliability and accuracy cannot be determined. (14)
1 5

Walkonomics (cont.)
Data Collection Method/Scoring: Data is gathered from open data
from government sources, OpenStreetMap, and scores are inputted
by anyone with access to the website. Each category is rated from 1-
5 stars and the categories are averaged to rate overall street
walkability from 1-5 stars. (14)
Standardizable: No
National/International Benchmarking Capacity: Because there is no
training or auditing of crowdsourced walkability scores, it would be
difficult to compare scores even from street to street. It's also not
clear exactly what open source data is being used, which is
important when deciding how comparable the data could be between
neighboring cities. Scores collected are publicly available.
Appropriate Geographic Areas: Not tested
Diagnostic Ability: No
Ability to Involve Community: Limited
Cost: Free
1 6

AARP Livability Index
Urban design features and concepts measured: Housing,
Neighborhood, Transportation. Environment, Health, Engagement,
Opportunity (11)
Scale of Urban Design: Macro
Who Collects: AARP
Collection Time: N/A
Accuracy: The AARP Livability Index is based on metrics chosen
by their technical advisory committee and policy/research experts
that they believe best measure the key aspects of livability. They
also conducted an individual preference survey of more than
4,500 people ages 50 and older. However, scores are built at the
neighborhood level and then aggregated up to the city, county,
and state levels. Because those scores are based on averages for
all neighborhoods within a particular geographic region, and
larger areas contain a mix of good and bad neighborhoods, scores
for higher levels of geography tend toward the middle, and the
range of scores is more narrow. (12)
1 7

AARP Livability Index (cont.)
Data Collection Method/Scoring: Data is gathered from publicly
available sources made available by federal agencies or research
institutions, and in some cases private sources. Metric values and
policy points within each category are combined to create a
category score. Those category scores are then averaged to create
a location’s total livability score. A score from 0-100 is assigned.
(11)
Standardizable: Yes
National/International Benchmarking Capacity: Communities are
scored by comparing them to one another - the average community
gets a score of 50, while above-average communities score higher
and below-average communities score lower. Scores collected are
publicly available for limited geographies. (12)
1 8

AARP Livability Index (cont.)
Ability to Involve Community: No
Cost: Free
Support: Email help desk: livabilityindex@aarp.org
1 9

CDC's Healthier Worksite
Initiative Walkability Audit Tool
Urban design features and concepts measured: Pedestrian Facilities,
Pedestrian Conflicts, Crosswalks, Maintenance, Path Size, Buffer,
Universal Accessibility, Aesthetics, Shade (15)
Scale of Urban Design: Micro
Data Type: Subjective
Who Collects: Anyone who wants to (15)
Collection Time: About 10 minutes per block
Accuracy: The Worksite Audit Tool is based on a walkability audit
tool developed by the CDC's Dr. Andrew Dannenberg. The tool is
primarily qualitative rather than quantitative in design, so some
interrater variation in observations was expected, however repeat
assessment of 20 walking route segments by three independent
observers yielded similar scores. The audit is geared toward
workplace walkability, so there is a decreased emphasis on children
and on traffic speed and volume, and there is increased attention on
walking comfort. (16)
2 0

CDC's Healthier Worksite Initiative
Walkability Audit Tool (cont.)
Data Collection Method/Scoring: Data is gathered with paper/pencil
by anyone who downloads the form on the website. The collector
rates each of the nine walkability categories on a scale from 1-5,
then adds up scores from the first three categories and multiplies it
by 3 (to signify the most importance), adds up the next five
categories and multiplies it by 2, and then adds up the remaining
scores and multiples it by 1 (to signify the least importance). A score
from 0-100 is assigned. (15)
Standardizable: No
National/International Benchmarking Capacity: As there is no
training or auditing of data collection, it would be difficult to
compare scores from various geographical areas. It is also geared
toward workplace walkability, so not intended for assessing
neighborhood walkability.(16) Scores are not publicly available.
2 1

CDC's Healthier Worksite Initiative
Walkability Audit Tool (cont.)
Appropriate Geographic Areas: Commercial areas
Cost: Free
2 2

MAPS-Mini Survey
Urban design features and concepts measured: Walk signals, Curb
cuts, Crosswalks, Land uses, Number of parks, Number of bus
stops, Street lights, Benches, Maintenance, Graffiti, Bike paths,
Sidewalks, Barriers, Buffers, Shade (19)
Who Collects: Anyone who wants to (17)
Collection Time: About 15 minutes per block
Accuracy: MAPS-Mini Survey is based on the 120 item parent
survey called MAPS, which was found to demonstrate moderate to
excellent reliability. (21) A study conducted by the CDC shows that
the MAPS-Mini environment measure is short enough to be
practical for use by community groups and planning agencies and is
a valid substitute for the full version that is 8 times longer. MAPS-
Mini total scores were linearly related to active transport in all
age groups. (18)
2 3

MAPS-Mini Survey (cont.)
Data Collection Method/Scoring: Data is gathered with
paper/pencil by anyone who downloads the form on the website.
The collector answers mostly yes/no or count questions about the
intersection and street block. Each answer is assigned a point value
between 0-2. The fifteen values are summed and then divided by 21
to create a percentage that represents how likely people are to
walk for transportation on the street (e.g. There is a 65%
likelihood that someone will choose walking as a mode of
transportation on this street.). (18)
Standardizable: Depends
National/International Benchmarking Capacity: Because users may
want to adapt MAPS-Mini by adding a small number of items
specific to their region or interests, using the “percentage of
possible maximum score” will allow rough comparability of scores
across different versions. (18) Data is gathered by anyone with no
training, but the questions are mostly quantitative in nature.
2 4

MAPS-Mini Survey (cont.)
Cost: Free
2 5

Comparison - Data
Comparison of the Number of Data Points
(the count of data points collected for analysis)
State of Place Walc InstituteWalking
Audit Survey
2 6
MAPS-Mini
Survey
CDC's Worksite Initiative
Walkability Audit Tool
Walkanomics
Walk Score

Comparison - Type/Scale
Comparison of the Type and Scale of Features Measured
(Subjective/Objective, Macro/Micro)
State of Place
2 7
MAPS-Mini Survey
Walc InstituteWalking
Audit Survey
AARP Livability
Index
Walkanomics
Walk Score
Objective Subjective
Micro-scale
Macro-scale

No
Comparison - Reliability
Comparison of a tool's ability to standardize walkability analysis
(Repeatable results are obtainable, Comprehensive analysis of why
the street is walkable)
State of Place
2 8
Walc InstituteWalking
Audit Survey MAPS-Mini Survey
Walkanomics
Walk Score
Standardizable
DiagnosticAbility
Yes
No
Yes

Comparison - Forecasting
Comparison of a tool's ability to forecast walkability
State of Place
User can input
multiple scenarios
of proposed changes
User inputs goals;
Software generates
recommendations
User informs Walk Score of potential changes &
Walk Score calculates new score
2 9
Walk Score
$$
Software calculates
new Index for each
scenario
Software
calculates ROI of
each scenario

Final Assessment
Summary Guidance
3 0

Sources
1) http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0112/modeling-walkability.html
2) http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916504274016
3) https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml
4) https://www.walkscore.com/professional/research.php
5) https://www.walkscore.com/professional/pricing.php
6) http://www.stateofplace.co/s/IMI21StateOfPlacePaperForm.pdf
7) http://www.stateofplace.co/cities
8) http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/11/4160/htm
9) http://www.stateofplace.co/datageeks/
10) http://www.stateofplace.co/howitworks/
11) https://livabilityindex.aarp.org/how-are-livability-scores-determined
12) https://livabilityindex.aarp.org/faqs
13) http://www.walkonomics.com/index.php/research/19-supporting-research
14) http://www.walkonomics.com/about
15) https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/worksite-pa/pdf/walkability_audit_tool.pdf
16) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.589.5162&rep=rep1&type=pdf
17) http://activelivingresearch.org/blog/2015/09/auditing-pedestrian-environment-brief-tool-
practitioners-community-members
18) https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2015/15_0098.htm
19) http://sallis.ucsd.edu/Documents/Measures_documents/MAPS_Mini_Tool_SegmentMethod_090815.pdf
20) http://www.walklive.org/s/Walkability-Workbook_WALC-Institute_September-2012.pdf
21) http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-13-403
22) http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0265813515625641?
__hsfp=3853515266&__hstc=48159608.58e97e1b8ea3eb781303eba6faf19f5e.1489415191668.14908
39193785.1490902057419.37&__hssc=48159608.4.1490902057419&journalCode=epbb
23) http://www.stateofplace.co/resources/publications/
3 1

Contact us
NAME: Mariela Alfonzo, Ph.D. - CEO/Founder
PHONE: +1-305-528-2642
EMAIL: mariela@stateofplace.co
WEBSITE: www.stateofplace.co
3 2

Ultimate Guide to Walkability Assessment Tools

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Ultimate Guide to Walkability Assessment Tools

More from State of Place

Recently uploaded

Ultimate Guide to Walkability Assessment Tools