Meteorological gaps in built environment audit tools: a scoping review
Creators: name: Drapeau, Hayley
name: Singh, Pratima
Publisher: name: OSF Registries
Year: 2023
Subjects: subject: Urban, Community and Regional Planning
subject: Architecture
subject: FOS: Civil engineering
subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
subject: Life Sciences
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences

description: 1.0 Overview: Walkability is a key concept in urban planning and public health, encompassing various aspects of the built environment that prioritize and promote pedestrian access (whether walking, wheeling or biking) in neighborhoods (Tobin et al., 2022). Extensive research has shown that neighborhoods with walkable built environments promote increased physical activity among residents which can prevent the development of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer (Smith et al., 2017). Additionally, walkable neighborhoods offer numerous advantages, including increased mental wellbeing, environmental sustainability, community engagement, and economic vitality (Wilmut &amp; Purcell, 2022). Given that a significant proportion of the population fails to meet the World Health Organization's recommended levels of physical activity (150 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity a week) (Guthold et al., 2018), enhancing neighborhood walkability and other non-motorized locomotion emerges as a valuable strategy to aid individuals reach this goal and enhance wellbeing on a community level. Walkability is often examined on a spectrum of microscale to macroscale elements. The microscale refers to specific features of the built environment that directly influence walkability (including pedestrian scale items such as the presence of benches, trees, art, and litter), while the macroscale considers broader contextual factors (including residential density and land use) (Frank et al., 2006). Notably, modifying microscale elements is often more cost-effective than making macroscale changes, while still yielding comparable or greater health benefits (Millington et al., 2009). Prioritizing improvements in microscale walkability is essential for city planners and policymakers to enhance community health through feasible, cost-effective methods. To enable effective microscale interventions, accurate measurement of microscale walkability within neighborhoods is crucial. One way this is achieved is through conducting built environment audits, which involve systematic evaluations of features that either facilitate or hinder pedestrian activity (Aghaabbasi et al., 2018; Brownson et al., 2009). However popular they may be, current built environment audit tools may have limitations in capturing walkability across different seasons and weather conditions (Curtis, 2017). Environmental variables such as weather, climate, and seasonal variations have been shown to significantly impact walkability, especially in regions with pronounced seasonal changes (Giles-Corti et al., 2005). For instance, active transportation often decreases during winter months due to icy or snowy sidewalks (Forsyth &amp; Krizek, 2011). Considering the impending challenges of climate change, including more frequent extreme weather events, a consistent and comprehensive evaluation of walkability across diverse environments becomes even more critical (Sallis et al., 2016). The Housing for Health Research Team at the University of Alberta plans to conduct a scoping review to examine the inclusion of meteorological factors, such as seasons and weather, in microscale built environment audits. Firstly, to provide a comprehensive summary of microscale built environment audit tools that have been specifically developed for particular weather conditions or seasons; and secondly, to assess the extent to which current microscale audit tools incorporate environmental factors into their assessments.By leveraging this knowledge, the team aims to develop a winter audit tool that addresses the identified gaps. Additionally, they will evaluate the need for an audit tool that considers multiple environmental factors to enhance walkability across various weather and climate conditions. 2.0 Objectives and Questions: Objectives and corresponding research questions are as follows: Objectives Questions To identify, evaluate, and understand the methodologies of microscale-built environment audits designed for assessing the walkability of pedestrian environments in different seasons or extreme weather conditions 1.1 Have any microscale-built environment audits been specifically designed to assess the walkability of pedestrian environments during distinct seasons (e.g., winter), or periods of extreme weather conditions, such as heavy precipitation (e.g., rainstorms) or high winds? 1.2 What methodologies do microscale-built environment audits employ to measure the impact of specific meteorological conditions on the walkability of pedestrian environments? 1.3 Do current audits exhibit gaps in their inclusion of built environment variables, indicators, or dimensions that could potentially mitigate the impacts of extreme wind, temperatures, and precipitation on walkability? 3.0 Methodology To conduct a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, a systematic approach will be employed. This process involves the joint efforts of our research team, a subject librarian from the University of Alberta, and subject matter experts, ensuring the selection of the most pertinent databases for our research questions. Search Strategy: The search strategy is developed in accordance with the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) criteria based on the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) guidelines (Aromataris &amp; Munn, 2017) ● Population (P): Any user of a pedestrian environment (e.g., pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users). ● Concept (C): Microscale built environment audit tools that have been developed specifically for or consider environmental factors (weather/climate or seasonal factors) that may impact the walkability of pedestrian environments. We are interested in identifying these tools, their development, reliability and validity. ● Context (C): Open/Global, looking at all relevant studies/resources, regardless of geographical location or specific population. Eligibility Criteria Inclusion Criteria: ● Studies focusing on microscale pedestrian environments. ● Research with a primary aim of developing or discussing the measurement properties (e.g., validity, reliability, feasibility) of at least one audit tool designed for assessing impacts on pedestrians. ● Types of studies to be included are empirical research studies, observational studies, interventional studies, systematic reviews, and methodological papers. ● Full text studies available in English. ● Studies published since the inception of each database until the date of the literature search. Exclusion Criteria: ● Studies that do not concentrate on microscale audit tools. ● Research not related to pedestrian environments. ● Studies in which the audit tool was initially created for purposes other than assessing impacts on pedestrians. ● Non-English language studies. ● We are not including ● Research that does not provide the actual audit tool or access to it. ● Studies that do not discuss the development, reliability, validity, or other measurement aspects of at least one audit tool. Databases: ● Web of Science ● Medline ● CINAHL Keywords Concepts RELATED TERMS Assessment Tools ("evaluation tool*" or "assessment tool*" or "measurement instrument*" or "audit tool*" or "audit instrument*") AND Related Audit Tools ("Central corridor pedestrian environment" or "Systematic pedestrian and cycling environmental scan" or "Pedestrian environment data scan" or "active neighborhood checklist" or "analytic audit tool" or "Irvine Minnesota inventory" or "walking suitability assessment form" or "neighborhood audit tool" or "path environment audit tool") AND Active Transportation and Built Environment (pedestrian* or "active transport*" or bicycl* or cyclist* or cycling or "rollerblading" or wheelchair* or sidewalk* or walkab* or "built environment*" or "urban design" or "urban planning" or "active commuting" or neighborhood* or "street design") 4.0 Data management and Selection process: The search results from all databases will be exported into reference management software to eliminate duplicates. The unique references will then be imported into Covidence (www.covidence.org), a web-based software platform specifically designed to streamline the production of systematic reviews. The selection process will occur in two stages: ● Pilot Testing: Prior to the actual title and abstract screening, a pilot testing phase will be conducted to ensure consistency and agreement between the independent reviewers and to refine the inclusion and exclusion criteria if necessary. A subset of references (n=20) will be randomly selected from the complete reference list to be used for the pilot testing. Each independent reviewer will conduct a blinded screening of the titles and abstracts of the pilot sample references in Covidence. The reviewers will categorize the references as 'include', 'exclude', or 'unsure' based on the predetermined criteria. Following completion of the screening, the reviewers will compare their categorizations, discuss any discrepancies, and aim to reach a consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer will be consulted. The pilot testing phase will help ensure a common understanding of the screening process and enhance the reliability and consistency of the subsequent full-text review. ● Title and Abstract Screening: Two independent reviewers will conduct a blinded screening of titles and abstracts of all unique references in Covidence. Each reviewer will categorize the references as 'include', 'exclude', or 'unsure' based on the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. References categorized as 'include' or 'unsure' by either reviewer will proceed to the next stage. ● Full-text Review: The full text of all references included after the title and abstract screening will be retrieved and uploaded into Covidence. Two independent reviewers will assess each full-text article for eligibility based on the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each reviewer will categorize the full-text articles as 'include' or 'exclude'. Any discrepancies in the selection of studies between reviewers at either stage will be resolved through discussion to reach consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer will be consulted. The reasons for excluding full-text articles will be recorded in Covidence. The entire process from the identification of studies to their final inclusion will be presented in a PRISMA-Scr (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review) flow diagram, providing a transparent report of the number of records identified, included, and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions. Covidence provides an audit trail, documenting the screening process, which enhances the transparency and replicability of the review process. • Handsearching: To ensure comprehensiveness and to avoid potentially missing any developmental study which includes audit tool, a hand search will be conducted on the reference lists of all papers that are included after the full-text review. This process involves manually scanning the reference lists to identify additional studies that may have been missed during the initial database searches. If any new studies are identified during the hand search, they will be subjected to the same inclusion and exclusion criteria and, if found relevant, will be incorporated into the review. The hand search ensures a thorough and exhaustive approach, complementing our primary electronic search strategies and further strengthening the rigor and comprehensiveness of our systematic review. 5.0 Data extraction Once studies have been selected for inclusion through the screening process in Covidence, we will move to the data extraction phase. This will be conducted using a standardized data extraction Google Form, which has been specifically designed for this review. Data extraction categories are subject to revision during the iterative search process to best represent gaps in the literature body. Two independent reviewers will extract the following data from each included study: ● Study Characteristics: title, authors, year of publication, country where the study was conducted, month that the audit was tested, and sample size. ● Outcomes: audit tool validity and reliability ● Feasibility characteristics: number of items, item scale, the number and type of subscales, scoring of questions, time to complete audit and ease of administration ● Environmental Variables: Specific environmental factors considered in the audit tool such as season, weather, climate, etc. ● Adaptability: Any evidence of the tool being adaptable to various settings or populations. ● Limitations: Any limitations or potential biases in the studies or in the audit tools that are discussed in the study. The use of a standardized Google Form will ensure that data is extracted consistently across all studies. Each reviewer will work independently, and any discrepancies or disagreements that arise during the data extraction process will be discussed between the two reviewers to reach a consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer will be consulted to resolve the issue. Following the completion of data extraction, a random sample of studies will be cross-checked to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the extracted data. Furthermore, authors of the included studies may be contacted to request missing or additional data when necessary. The data extracted via Google Forms will be exported into a spreadsheet for further synthesis and analysis. This methodical approach to data extraction will contribute to the reliability and validity of the findings of our scoping review. 6.0 Data analysis: In this research project, we will utilize google forms and R for the data collection, analysis and reporting. We will create a google form with the relevant research questions, specifically response types and define the criteria for data extraction. Data will be collected using the form, reported to a CSV or excel file and loaded into R. Data cleaning will be performed to ensure the integrity and predefined criteria will be applied for data extraction. Specifically, the items in each audit tool identified will be analyzed to determine whether it represents an item that may mitigate against negative environmental factors on walkability or if it is an item that may promote walking and cycling behaviors in various extreme weather conditions and seasons (e.g., temperature and precipitation extremes). 7.0 Report and Manuscript Preparation Following the completion of our data analysis, we will begin the process of writing the manuscript for publication. The manuscript will be structured according to the typical scientific paper format: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD). ● Introduction: The introduction will provide a background to the study, clearly define the problem, and state the purpose and objectives of the research. ● Methods: This section will detail the methodology of our scoping review, including our search strategy, selection process, data extraction, and data analysis procedures. ● Results: The results section will present the findings of our study, represented both textually and visually. All major findings will be reported in a logical sequence, referring to tables and figures as necessary. ● Discussion: The discussion will interpret the results in the context of our initial research question and existing literature. It will also address the implications of our findings, the limitations of our study, and potential avenues for future research. ● Conclusion: A brief conclusion will summarize the key findings and their implications, and may suggest areas for further research. All authors will contribute to the writing process and will review and approve the final manuscript before submission. We will aim to submit the manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal that reaches an audience who will find our research most applicable and beneficial. The manuscript will also be prepared following the PRISMA-Scr guidelines for scoping reviews to ensure high-quality reporting. Along with the manuscript, the PRISMA-Scr checklist and flow diagram will be provided. Additionally, all data and R scripts will be made available in a public repository to promote open science, unless restricted by data privacy regulations. This approach to manuscript preparation and publication will ensure that our research is communicated effectively and contributes to the existing body of knowledge in a meaningful way. 8.0 Adherence to the Work Plan The research team will strive to adhere to the timeline and objectives outlined in the work plan. However, given the nature of research, some flexibility will be necessary to accommodate unexpected challenges or delays that may arise during the process. Regular team meetings mostly on Tuesday will be held to ensure that the project is on track and to address any issues promptly. Any significant changes to the work plan, including adjustments to time frames or tasks, will be communicated to the Research and Evaluation Coordinator, Kelsey Wright, who will then inform Dr. Karen Lee, the Director of Housing for Health. This will ensure that all team members stay informed about the project's progress and that any necessary adjustments to the plan are made in a timely and coordinated manner. 9.0 References: 1. Brown, B. B., Smith, K. R., Hanson, H., et al. (2013). Neighborhood design for walking and biking: physical activity and body mass index. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(3), 231-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.10.024 2. Giles-Corti, B., Timperio, A., Bull, F., et al. (2005). Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: increased specificity for ecological models. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 33(4), 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003677-200510000-00005 3. Forsyth, A., &amp; Krizek, K. J. (2010). Promoting walking and bicycling: assessing the evidence to assist planners. Built Environment, 36(4), 429-446. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.36.4.429 4. Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., Frank, L. D., et al. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2), 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2502_03 5. Marshall, J. D., Brauer, M., Frank, L. D., et al. (2009). Healthy neighborhoods: walkability and air pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(11), 1752-1759. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0900595 6. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., &amp; O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(69). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 7. Aromataris, E., &amp; Munn, Z. (Eds.). (2017). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Retrieved from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/