Background and Purpose
Research translation is needed, especially to ‘implementers’ to incorporate health in their everyday work (Jackson, Dannenberg, & Frumkin, 2013).  These walkability stakeholders, such as planners, engineers, architects, urban designers, policy makers amongst others, have their own professional knowledge on what constitutes a successful urban realm or physical environment.  While their opinions may be biased towards their desired outcomes, such as sustainable transport behaviours or engaging streetscapes, their relevant knowledge is not always incorporated into physical activity or public health research in a holistic manner that ensures results are translatable to their practices.  The diversity of relevant terms, concepts and practices from professional disciplines can result in misinterpretation or omission because of a supposed irrelevance (Brennan Ramirez et al., 2006).  This can reduce the perceived significance of research findings (Allender, Cavill, Parker, & Foster, 2009).  This exploratory exercise created a discussion forum for multidisciplinary participants using common reference areas, selected by the participants themselves, within the Greater Dublin Area (Ireland).  A holistic walkability criteria checklist, which can be used to address walkability in guidelines, plans, designs and policies, was generated from the study findings.  The criteria consider the contextual nature of walkability and how it relates to micro street-level, meso neighbourhood-level or macro city-level environments.

Objectives
The objective of this research was to develop multi-disciplinary, transferable walkability criteria.

Methods
Qualitative data was collected in six professionally heterogeneous focus groups (N=26).  The procedure used socio-spatial recall to facilitate discussion on what makes an area high or low walkable.  This involved participants selecting two high walkable and two low walkable areas in the inner city, the outer city and suburban areas of Dublin.  The area selection process was facilitated using mapping.  Area selections were collated and discussed within the group setting.  Focus groups were carried out until data saturation was reached.  Both the personal and professional concerns of participations were considered as a result of the method used.  This contributed to the comprehensiveness of the data obtained.  The walkability criteria were generated from the themes identified in the data using content analysis.

Results
Across the focus groups similar areas were selected by participants; however the reasons for selection varied.  In general, engineers, public representatives and public health and advocacy professionals selected areas ‘to go for a walk’ whereas spatial and transport planners and architecture and design professionals selected liveable neighbourhoods.  The criteria reflect the contextual nature of walkability and are a series of general statements rather than specific items for measurement.  This further increases the transferability and applicability of the criteria.  A core theme ‘scale’ emerged from the data which is consistent with Ewing and colleagues urban design centred walkability research (2006).  The remaining 13 criteria relate to (i) the liveable village (n=3), (iii) permeability (n=6) and (iii) the streetscape (n=4).

Conclusions
Walkability is contextual and means different things to different people, but also different things to the same person under different contexts.  An individual’s perception of how walkable an area is forms a key consideration in their decision whether or not to walk regardless of the purpose of the trip.  Therefore, walkability should be a key consideration for everyone involved in all elements of the planning, design and construction of the built environment.  Therefore, by identifying and summarising the key elements that contribute to walkability, in the opinion of this multidisciplinary group, criteria were developed which are transferable for use in both practice and future research.  The key elements are scale, livability, permeability and the streetscape.

Implications for Practice and Policy
The developed criteria present relevant, multidisciplinary walkability considerations in a succinct manner which will: (i) enable practitioners undertake a simple ‘walkability check’ on their designs and plans and (ii) inform researchers on the elements of the built environment which are key concerns for practitioners and policymakers.

References

1. Allender, S., Cavill, N., Parker, M., & Foster, C. (2009). “Tell us something we don”t already know or do!’- The response of planning and transport professionals to public health guidance on the built environment and physical activity. Journal of Public Health Policy, 30(1), 102–116.
2. Brennan Ramirez, L. K., Hoehner, C. M., Brownson, R. C., Cook, R. A., Orleans, C. T., Hollander, M., … Wilkinson, W. (2006). Indicators of activity-friendly communities: an evidence-based consensus process. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(6), 515–24.
3. Ewing, R., Handy, S. L., Brownson, R. C., Clemente, O., & Winston, E. (2006). Identifying and Measuring Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Journal of Physical Activiy and Health, 3(Suppl 1), S223–S239.
4. Jackson, R. J., Dannenberg, A. L., & Frumkin, H. (2013). Health and the built environment: 10 years after. American Journal of Public Health, 103(9), 1542–4.

Support / Funding Source
This study was funded by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency and National Development Plan’s STRIVE programme.