Transportation and Recreational Infrastructure

Development: Transport and Land Use Measures

for Public Health Comparisons
Michelle R. Oswald Beiler, M.ASCE 1; Greg Miller 2; and Madelyne Brown 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Understanding how transportation and recreational development projects impact local communities, specifically with regard to
public health, is critical for continued investment. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of transportation and recreational
infrastructure projects, specifically parks, pools, and trails, on local communities with a preliminary connection to public health measures.
Two objectives are achieved: (1) develop a process for analyzing transportation and recreational infrastructure using project-specific and
network-specific metrics and (2) implement the process through a pilot study in central Pennsylvania. Projects funded under Pennsylvania’s
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Community Conservation Partnership Program (PA DCNR C2P2) within four counties
(Lycoming, Northumberland, Snyder, and Union) are analyzed. The results are synthesized at the project as well as the minor civil division
(MCD) level in order to reflect the opportunity for health measure comparisons. Highlights include strong positive correlations between
population density and trail demand metrics as well as pool demand and walkable household density metrics. Metrics are then further
analyzed in relation to neighborhood obesity rates. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000468. © 2018 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Transportation management; Public health and safety; Recreation; Geographic information systems.

Introduction and Background
With goals of improving mobility while reducing impacts on the
environment, economy, and society, federal and state agencies
have been supporting the need for transportation and recreational
infrastructure development. For example, for over 20 years, the
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
(PA DCNR) has been providing funding through the Community
Conservation Partnership Program (C2P2) to support sustainable
community development and revitalization projects across the
state (PA DCNR 2016). Projects such as parks, pools, and recrea-
tional facilities, as well as trail rehabilitation and trail develop-
ment, have been funded. Although infrastructure projects are
being implemented, the impact of these projects on local com-
munities and public health is relatively unknown. Understanding
how transportation and recreational infrastructure projects impact
local communities, specifically with regard to public health and
well-being, is critical for continued funding (CDC 2010).
The primary purpose of this study is to systematically analyze
the impact of transportation and recreational projects, specifically
parks, pools, and trails, on local communities. A preliminary con-
nection to public health measures, specifically neighborhood obe-
sity rates, is provided as an example of how recreational projects
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Bucknell Univ., 1 Dent Dr., Lewisburg, PA 17837 (corresponding author).
Email: michelle.beiler@bucknell.edu
2
Undergraduate Research Assistant, Bucknell Univ., 1 Dent Dr.,
Lewisburg, PA 17837. Email: glrm001@bucknell.edu
3
Undergraduate Research Assistant, Bucknell Univ., 1 Dent Dr.,
Lewisburg, PA 17837. Email: mmb021@bucknell.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 15, 2017; approved
on April 6, 2018; published online on July 24, 2018. Discussion period
open until December 24, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Urban Planning
and Development, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9488.
can be explored in terms of health impacts. In order to do so, two
primary objectives are achieved: (1) develop a process for analyz-
ing transportation and recreation projects using project-specific and
network-specific metrics and (2) implement the process to a pilot
study in central Pennsylvania.
To meet the research objectives, this study investigates projects
funded through the PA DCNR C2P2 grants, which fall into the sub-
categories of Trails and Park Rehabilitation and Development in
Lycoming, Northumberland, Snyder, and Union counties in central
Pennsylvania. In order to further connect the projects to public
health measures, the counties were selected based on their location
within the Geisinger Health System region (organization that
provides primary health care services in central and northeastern
Pennsylvania). Using geographic information systems (GIS), the
pilot study projects (PSPs) are evaluated based on transportation
and land use network and project measures. A preliminary connec-
tion to publicly available health data (obesity rates) is provided in
this study as an example for how health care services like Geisinger
can use the project and network measures with public health data.
Transportation and Health
Walkability has been identified by multiple studies to improve
public health (Litman 2003; CDC 1999). Walkable communities
have shorter blocks, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, sidewalks,
lighting, and crosswalks, and, overall, are more pedestrian friendly,
increasing the demand for walking (Adams et al. 2016). In particu-
lar, walkable neighborhoods have a 35% lower risk of obesity
and may reduce the risk of diabetes by more than 10% (Bakalar
2016). Samimi and Mohammadian (2010) found that for every
1% decrease in automobile usage, the chance of obesity is re-
duced by 0.4%. Braun et al. (2016) explored walkability in connec-
tion to health impacts such as cardiometabolic risk factors and
found a relationship between increased walkability and low blood
pressure rates. Schauder and Foley (2015) determined that active

© ASCE 04018030-1 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030

 transportation contributes to reductions in cholesterol levels, and
Falconer et al. (2015) explored the association between active travel
patterns in school-age boys and lower body mass index.
Though active travel has been shown to have significant health
benefits, specifically 30–45 min of walking or biking (CDC 1999),
only about 4.3% of adults actively commute to work (CDC 2015).
Even with high-quality walking and biking infrastructure present,
individuals may still choose not to participate in active travel, sug-
gesting additional efforts are needed.
The decision to commute by active travel is influenced by many
factors, such as the proximity to such infrastructure (Heinen et al.
2015) and personal physical activity level (Meloni et al. 2009), as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
well as the commute environment. For example, zoning and develop-
ment regulations (Cannon et al. 2013), including the presence of
small retail and smaller lot sizes, have been shown to be positively
associated with the likeliness that an individual will walk or bike
(Appleyard 2012). Although more research is needed, connected
and efficient infrastructure is at the core of promoting active travel
(Buehler et al. 2016).
Recent tools and methods have been developed to quantify the
benefits associated with active transportation. The Health Impact
Assessment (HIA) is a tool that analyzes the potential impacts
of projects ranging from physical activity to mental health to in-
form transportation planners of potential effects of their decisions
(Dannenberg et al. 2014). Similarly, the Health and Economic
Assessment Tool (HEAT) for cycling and walking is a tool that can
be applied to plan new active transport infrastructure and provide
a prospective health impact assessment (WHO 2014). Also, the
US Department of Transportation published a Transportation and
Health Tool, which compares states and metropolitan areas to
one another based on policies and various transportation statistics
(USDOT 2016). This tool provides statistics about the percentage
of people who commute by bicycle and the use of federal funds for
bicycle and pedestrian efforts.
Physical Activity Facility Development
Recreational facilities, including parks, pools, and trails, contribute
to the physical activity spaces of a local community. Efforts to
develop these facilities continue with state and local agencies pro-
viding funding incentives. For example, PA DCNR’s goal is to have
a trail within 15 min of every citizen in PA (PA DCNR 2017). The
planning and development of safe and accessible local parks is the
overall priority of the Community Parks and Recreation Grants pro-
gram, and therefore, over the last decade, many local parks and
pools have been developed and rehabilitated (PA DCNR 2015).
This program encourages projects that advance local conservation
and recreational goals of communities throughout the state.
Previous studies such as Schwartz et al. (2011) have begun to
explore physical activity establishments in connection to health mea-
sures, such as body mass index. For the investigation, Schwartz et al.
(2011) used eight categories for physical activity establishments: (1)
fitness and recreational sports centers or sports and recreation
instruction; (2) other amusement and recreation industries; (3) high
schools; (4) boat access points and trailheads; (5) DCNR park proj-
ects; (6) preserved areas; (7) DCNR trails; and (8) miscellaneous
sites, including bowling, golf courses, country clubs, nature parks,
and the Young Men’s Christian Associations (YMCAs). The
Schwartz et al. (2011) study serves as a foundation for this study
because it establishes the value of exploring land use metrics in re-
lation to electronic health records, specifically body mass index
(BMI).
Parks are open or enclosed public spaces developed for rec-
reational use. They play a vital role in the public health of their
© ASCE 04018030-2
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030
surrounding communities because they often provide safe, open
spaces for physical activity. A pool is a type of park in which there
is a still body of water intended for swimming. Often, large park
developments also have pools. The facilities of a park must cater to
the specific values of a community; thus, the efficacy of a park is
mainly determined by the potential for different choices and oppor-
tunities for activity (Harnik and Welle 2011).
Previous studies have shown that physical activity establish-
ments are not evenly distributed geographically, nor evenly dis-
persed among all people. Although research shows that people
who live within a half mile of a park tend to exercise more than
people who lack park access (Urban Land Institute 2015), only
35% of adults live within a half mile of a park (CDC 2015). A study
by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania (2014) showed that 9% of
Pennsylvanians live in a municipality without local parkland.
Therefore, exploring opportunities for development as well as the
impacts of existing development is valuable.
Physical Activity Facility Demand
The overall impact of a physical activity development is directly
related to the facility demand. A 2009 study demonstrated how
the implementation of a high-quality multipurpose trail failed to
draw in users from its surrounding neighborhood and was unsuc-
cessful in increasing physical activity (Burbidge and Goulias
2009). Similarly, in the pursuit of increasing park demand across
demographics via renovations and rehabilitations, improvements to
parks may not automatically result in increased use and physical
activity (Cohen et al. 2009).
User demand for sustainable infrastructure is key to understand-
ing the magnitude of the health impacts. For trail demand, Oswald
Beiler et al. (2015) developed a method for assessing the impacts
of rail trails, providing evidence for the use of infrared trail counters
to measure nonmotorized (primarily pedestrian and bicycle) travel
demand. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2011) pro-
vides information on choosing a pedestrian or bike counting tech-
nology that focuses on the type of user, length of the study, and
cost of technology. The major difference between nonmotorized
volume and vehicle counting is that nonmotorized volumes are
much more dependent and sensitive to environmental conditions,
causing counts to significantly vary by the hour, day, and time of
year (FHWA 2011). Therefore, automatic counting methods are
useful in gathering comprehensive data over time. Some of the most
common methods are passive infrared, active infrared, pneumatic
tubes, inductive loops, piezoelectric sensors, and radio beams.
Passive infrared equipment, which was selected and used in this
study, detects passing people by comparing the temperature of
the background to the heat emitted by the individual, whereas active
infrared uses an infrared beam and receiver.
In order to validate the automatic results, manual counts are rec-
ommended, which can be useful in determining adjustment factors
as well as directional and mode splits (Ryus et al. 2014). In terms
of adjustments, when two people pass an infrared counter at the
same time, only one count may be recorded; therefore, comparing
manual counts to automatic counts can determine the adjustment
factor. Also, expansion factors (seasonal adjustment factors), such
as those developed by the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Docu-
mentation Project (NBPDP 2009), can be used to estimate usage
over a longer time period.
Similarly, a methodology for measuring the user demand of
parks is crucial in understanding the influence of the park on the
surrounding community. Although advanced counting technolo-
gies for parks exist, they are expensive and overall challenging to
implement at the pilot study level. Other nontechnology methods
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 used to estimate park usage include manual counts and interviews
(Silver et al. 2014).
GIS Metrics
The use of geographic information systems in transportation plan-
ning and network analysis applications can be extremely valuable.
GIS allows for spatial investigation of multiple networks and data
layers through visualization. Similar to motorized transportation
performance measures, nonmotorized metrics can be used to mea-
sure the effectiveness of a system. Semler et al. (2016) presents a
guidebook for developing pedestrian and bicycle performance met-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
rics that suggests that the metrics stem from community goals such
as connectivity, health, and safety and focus on the transportation
measures of accessibility, compliance, demand, reliability, mobil-
ity, and infrastructure.
In order to quantitatively measure transportation networks, GIS
spatial analysis tools can be useful. Tresidder (2005) defines seven
connectivity metrics using GIS, including link-node ratio (number
of links divided by the number of nodes), connected node ratio
(number of real nodes divided by the total number of nodes), aver-
age block length (sum of road length per unit area divided by the
number of nodes per unit area), and intersection density (number of
intersections per unit area). Similarly, Dill (2004) presents mea-
sures of connectivity, including pedestrian route directness (PRD),
which is computed by dividing the network distance from origin to
destination by the geodetic distance. PRD is described as the best
connectivity indicator because it reflects minimizing trip distances
and optimizing route directness; however, it is challenging to com-
pute using GIS.
Many GIS studies have been successful in demonstrating the
effectiveness of using this technology to evaluate walkability and
connectivity. Forsyth and Oakes (2014) found that density mea-
sures and connectivity measures are positively correlated with
walking. Gori et al. (2014) presented various ways to measure the
quality, connectivity, and proximity of a road network and sug-
gested no single measure can accurately describe the walkability
of an area. Schlossberg and Brehm (2009) further provided GIS
techniques in evaluating walkable environments, such as creating
a walkable street layer and analyzing pedestrian catchment areas
using a half-mile network and geodetic buffer, which is the theo-
retical walkable zone around a point.
GIS Tools
The use of GIS can greatly simplify the computation of common
metrics. The Network Analyst tool can solve a variety of network
problems, such as finding the closest facility, routing origins to des-
tinations, and identifying service areas around a location, when
combined with a road network data set (ESRI 2016d). Many of
the GIS desktop program capabilities, as well as new tools for
streamlining computations, appear on ArcGIS Online. In ArcGIS
Online, network analysis tools can be used with various predefined
travel modes such as driving, rural driving, and walking distances,
all of which use the road network data set. Driving distances model
the movement of cars, with rural driving distance allowing cars to
drive on unpaved roads, whereas walking distance follows only
roads that allow for pedestrian traffic (ESRI 2016b). Other GIS
tools are available on the online platform, such as the Business An-
alyst Web Application, which applies GIS to business data (ESRI
2016a).
When performing metric calculations and using large sets of
data, the use of the GIS ModelBuilder tool can be extremely help-
ful. ModelBuilder is a visual programming language specific to
© ASCE 04018030-3
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030
GIS in which the user can string together data sets, geoprocessing
tools, and other operations, such as an iterative tool that allows for
the repetition of a task for multiple features (ESRI 2016c). When a
model is complete, it is run, and the desired output, such as a table
or a feature layer, of the model’s process is produced.
Though GIS is an extremely helpful tool in evaluating many
performance metrics, there are limitations and challenges when
exploring real-world problems. Data consistency, specifically with
regard to infrastructure and land use in rural areas, was explored
by Stewart et al. (2016). Finding ways to coordinate data sources
across local jurisdictions is fundamental in ensuring accuracy. Also,
the modified areal unit problem (MAUP) is “a problem arising from
the imposition of artificial units of spatial reporting on continuous
geographical phenomena resulting in the generation of artificial
spatial patterns” (Ervin 2016). In the process of grouping data
in GIS, information can be lost and can inevitably cause a bias
(Ervin 2016). Dalton et al. (2014) explored the route differences
between those predicted by GIS and those actually taken by com-
muters. Actual routes are typically 27% longer than those modeled
in GIS because people stop at intermediate locations and avoid
crowded roads. However, the walking routes are 13% shorter than
the GIS routes because people take paths that are not included in
the GIS network data set (Dalton et al. 2014). Zhang et al. (2011)
analyzed the accuracy of the assumption that people will use the
closest facility. Although the study finds that this assumption is
not always true, Zhang et al. (2011) pointed out that it is an espe-
cially convenient assumption to make when using GIS. These fac-
tors and limitations are addressed in this study because GIS is the
primary tool used to analyze the metrics.
Methodology
The following six-step methodology was developed in order to
analyze the pilot study project based on the four-county region
in central PA (Lycoming, Northumberland, Snyder, and Union):
(1) project scoping, (2) project inventory, (3) metric identification,
(4) GIS data collection, (5) field data collection, and (6) metric ap-
plication. The four-county region was selected as an example of a
subset of the Geisinger Health System service area in order to ex-
plore the method and determine applicability to a real-world net-
work. Each step is discussed subsequently in terms of how it is
applied to the four-county region. Although this research focused
on those counties, the process was developed in order to be applied
at a broad level, inclusive of not only other counties within the
Geisinger service area, but counties throughout the nation.
Project Scoping (Step 1)
In order to apply the method to a real-world application and sim-
ulate the process for comparing project development patterns with
health measures, the PA DCNR C2P2 projects, specifically those
funded under the two grant categories, trails and park rehabilitation
and development, were provided by PA DCNR (2015). A database
of projects as well as a GIS shapefile of the project locations were
provided.
Because the research focus is a pilot study of select counties
within the Geisinger Health System region, the projects that were
identified as part of the research scope were those included within
the four-county region (Lycoming, Northumberland, Snyder, and
Union). Based on data availability, projects funded through the
C2P2 program between the years 2002 and 2015 were selected
for the pilot study, reflective of Geisinger EHR data (available from
2002 to present).
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Table 1. PA DCNR project inventory process
Number of projects (%) Filtering process
122 (100%) All projects outside the four-county region eliminated (original data set: 3,389 project line items)
−4 (3.28%) Four trails discovered for primary ATV/snowmobile usage
−3 (2.46%) Three identical duplicate points found in data set
−20 (16.39%) Nineteen projects fall outside of 2002–2015 date range; one project with missing funding date information
þ1 (0.0082%) One project had both park and pool improvements listed in the scope of renovation. This project was split into two projects:
park and pool renovations.
−2 (0.016%) Two more projects were at sites that have closed down
−17 (13.93%) Twenty-eight projects were listed as single phases of development/rehabilitation to facilities. Multiple phases of these
28 projects were condensed into one project phase per facility, leaving 11 individual projects and eliminating 17 projects
77 (∼63%) Approximately 63% of the original 122 within the 4 county region were kept in the final PSP analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: Bold text indicates the total projects that remain after filtering.

Project Inventory (Step 2)
PA DCNR (2015) provided 3,389 data entries for parks, pools, and
trails in Pennsylvania, all of which received some form of funding
from DCNR through the C2P2 program. Of these 3,389 projects,
122 of the geocoded points fell within the study’s four-county
region. Although 122 projects were identified in this four-county
region, a data filtering process (removal of project duplicates, non-
applicable projects, and projects outside of the analysis timeframe)
was applied, as shown in Table 1.
First, it was found that four projects were based on motorized
trails for all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), rather than nonmotorized
(pedestrian and cycling) facilities; thus, they were eliminated be-
cause these trails were not within the research scope of facilities
supporting physical activity. Next, 3 projects were duplicated within
the data set, 19 projects had funding expiration dates either before
2002 or after 2015, and 1 project had no date information; therefore,
all of these projects were removed. Next, it was found that two addi-
tional projects were carried out at sites that had since closed, and
were consequently removed. There was one project that had both
park and pool improvements listed in the scope of the renovation.
This project was divided into two parts, the park and pool renova-
tions, thus adding one project to the data set. Finally, 28 projects
were listed as single phases of development or rehabilitation to fa-
cilities. Multiple phases of these 28 projects were condensed into one
project phase per facility, leaving 11 individual projects. This came
to a total of 77 projects, also referred to as the pilot study projects.
As outlined in Table 1, the scope of the projects included in the
analysis was redefined based on the following assumptions about
projects included in the PSP analysis:
• Funded by DCNR between 2002 and 2015 (based on expira-
tion date).
• Complete funding date information available.
• Not identified as ATVor snowmobile (motorized) trails or parks.
• Open facilities that are not closed or planned for closure for
2015 and 2016.
• Expiration dates within 2002–2015 (inclusive)—It was assumed
that the “expiration date” for the project was also the “opening
date” for a project in order to ensure that the entire facility was
fully functioning and available for use at that time. Although
some parks may have had an opening date before the reported
expiration date, there was no information to ensure that the fa-
cility was complete or officially publicly accessible before then.
For projects with multiple phases, the expiration date for the first
phase was used.
and project-specific aspects such as demand. In order to group
the metrics based on similar goals, five categories were estab-
lished: (1) density, (2) connectivity, (3) physical activity facilities,
(4) project demand, and (5) project magnitude. Table 2 includes a
list of the transportation and land use metrics identified and devel-
oped for this study. The metrics represent a combination of standard
geographical network measures (such as population density, inter-
section density, and link-node ratio), as well as metrics that char-
acterize the projects (such as trail demand, trail length, and pool
facility area). By establishing metrics at both levels, there is the
opportunity to explore correlations between the recreational proj-
ects and network accessibility. Each metric is further defined along
with the application level at the project, project buffer, or minor
civil division (MCD) level.
The project level refers to applying the metric directly to the indi-
vidual project location. The project buffer level refers to analyzing
the metric within a five-mile network buffer around the project ac-
cess points, unless otherwise specified. A bikeshed is defined by the
Federal Transit Authority (FTA 2011) as a 4.83 km (3 mi) buffer
around a facility. Another study by Iseki and Tingstrom (2013)
on bikesheds defines a 7.08 km (4.4 mi) network buffer bikeshed
based on average bicycle trip distance data and energy expenditure.
Therefore, for this research project, a network buffer of 8.05 km
(5 mi) is used for a majority of the project measures to encompass
both the 4.83 km (3 mi) and 7.08 km (4.4 mi) in order to reflect
bicycle accessibility, as well as to be inclusive to other modes of
transportation. Last, the MCD level refers to analyzing the metric
based on the minor civil division boundary (PASDA 2014b). For
example, the roadway network distance measure (average network
distance from households to nearest project) is in the connectivity
category and is applied at the project buffer and MCD level because
it is based on the network, whereas the trail mode split (ratio of
pedestrians to cyclists) measure is under the project demand cat-
egory and is only applied to the project itself.
The only metric that was applied at a smaller project buffer
level, not based on 8.05 km (5 mi) buffer, was walkable household
density. Walksheds, which are well-established compared to bike-
sheds, are traditionally defined as a quarter-mile to half-mile buffer
around a facility (Zhang et al. 2011). Pedestrian catchment areas
and walkable zones tend to be half-mile buffers around a point;
thus, in order to reflect the traditional walkshed area, a half-mile
buffer around the project is used for the walkable household density
metric (Schlossberg and Brehm 2009).

Metric Identification (Step 3) GIS Data Collection (Step 4)

Based on the goals of the study, transportation and land use metrics The next section discusses the use of geographic information sys-
can be used to analyze characteristics such as density, connectivity, tems to gather spatial data in preparation for applying the metrics.

© ASCE 04018030-4 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030

 Table 2. Metric definitions and application
Category Measure Application Definition
Density Walkable household Project buffer ½ mi Number of households within a network distance of ½ mi
density from a project (project buffer based on ½ mi)
Household density Project buffer, MCD Number of households per unit of area
Population density Project buffer, MCD Number of people per unit of area
Connectivity Roadway network Project buffer, MCD Average network distance from households to nearest project
distance
Geodetic distance Project buffer, MCD Average linear ground distance from households to nearest project
Route directness Project buffer, MCD Roadway network distance divided by the geodetic distance
Link-node ratio Project buffer, MCD Number of links divided by the number of intersections (real nodes)
and cul-de-sacs (dangle nodes)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Average block length Project buffer, MCD Number of street intersections divided by the number of intersections
plus cul-de-sacs
Intersection density Project buffer, MCD Number of intersections per unit of area
Connected node ratio Project buffer, MCD Number of street intersections divided by the number of intersections
plus cul-de-sacs
Roadway density Project buffer, MCD Number of linear miles of street per square mile
Physical activity Physical activity Project buffer, MCD The ratio of the number of types of physical activity facilities present in an area.
facility facility Physical activity facilities include fitness and recreational centers (ESRI Business
development diversity index Analyst NAICS code 713940), other amusement and recreational industries
(ESRI Business Analyst NAICS code 713990), schools (ESRI Business Analyst),
boat and trail access points (PASDA: DCNR Explore PA trails—Trails (points)
PASDA: PFBC Access Points (Fishing and Boating)), DCNR park projects and
local parks (DCNR Open Data: Local_Parks_2014), preserved areas (PASDA:
Protected Land Inventory), DCNR trails (DCNR Open Data:
Pennsylvania_DCNR_Bureau_of_Recreation_and_Conservation_Grants_Trails),
and miscellaneous: bowling centers, golf courses and country clubs, nature parks,
other similar institutions, YMCAs (ESRI Business Analyst NAICS codes 713910,
712190, 813319, 713950) Searched by title “YMCA” in Business Analyst).
Non-PSP density Project buffer, MCD Number of non-PSP facilities per unit area
PSP density Project buffer, MCD Number of PSP per unit of area
Project demand Trail mode split Project Ratio of pedestrians to cyclists
Trail demand Project Number of trips per year
Pool demand Project Number of attendees per season
Park demand Project Number of attendees per year
Project magnitude Trail length Project Length of the trail in miles
Pool facility area Project Acreage of the pool facility
Park facility area Project Acreage of the park facility
Note: Project Buffer = project buffer of a 5-mi network distance around the project (except for walkable household density, which is based on a ½ mi distance);
MCD = minor civil division; and Project = application to the individual project.

Multiple data sets were collected and are described based on the
following categories: project data, county data, and network data.
Project Data
The spatial data provided by PA DCNR for the projects included
location; however, it was based on a specific point rather than the
actual project delineation (such as a line for a trail or polygon for a
pool or park). The acquisition of trail data in the form of GIS digi-
tized line representation was essential for network analysis. Of the
seven trails examined in the pilot study, trail data were found for
only two (Buffalo Valley Rail Trail and Susquehanna Riverwalk)
within open source resources such as DCNR Open Access and the
Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA 2013). Thus, the re-
maining five had to be digitized through the examination of official
trail maps or through a field investigation. Considering the latter
method when official trail maps were unavailable (Loyalsock
Riverfront Trail and Muncy Heritage Nature Trail), Fitbit (2017)
and GPS (global positioning system) smartphone technologies
were paired to map a digital representation of the walking path
along the given trail. This data were then transferred into GIS line
format via digitization to complete trail line data inventory.
The acquisition of park and pool data in the form of GIS digi-
tized polygon representation was also essential for the development
of an access point layer, later to be used in Network Analyst. The
vast majority of these data could be found in the Local Parks layer
within the online open resource DCNR Open Access (PA DCNR
2014). Any missing data had to be manually digitized through fur-
ther site research. This was carried out through site identification
through the DCNR project point data, followed (as thoroughly as
possible) by site boundary examination of Google Earth (2016) and
Google Maps Street View (2016).
Once polygon project data were collected or digitized, a similar
inventory of access points for each project was completed. The
identification of access points was helpful to create network buff-
ers, service areas tending to the recreational demands of popula-
tions surrounding each project. An examination of Google Earth
(2016) and Google Maps Street View (2016) was used to determine
the boundary points along each PSP that intersected with a road,
designating the capability of access through entrance of a parking
lot or other opening.
County Data
Because there was limited data available for individual household
data, county jurisdictions were contacted directly. Each county
within the four-county region, as well as the adjacent counties that
fell within the project buffer boundaries (Centre, Columbia, Clinton,

© ASCE 04018030-5 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030

 Dauphin, Juniata, Mifflin, Montour, Potter, Schuylkill, and Tioga),
had either a GIS contact or department. The local metropolitan plan-
ning organization (MPO), Susquehanna Economic Development
Association-Council of Governments (SEDA-COG), also assisted
with gathering the household data for counties within its jurisdiction.
Once the data for each county were received, the following ap-
proach was taken in identifying residential homes for the study
region. First, the address points layer was examined to see if it con-
tained a structure type field. Address points that had any indication
that they were not residential, such as having a structure type code
“BIZ” (business), were removed. Structures that fell into ambiguous
codes, such as “MIX” (mixed-use), or had no type information were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
kept. The address points were spatially joined to the land use or zon-
ing layer. Points that had land use or zoning descriptions indicating
the point was not residential, such as “commercial,” were removed.
Remaining points left with missing or ambiguous information were
filtered using any additional information provided. Aerial imagery,
Google Maps Street View (2016), and comment fields were used to
further remove nonresidential points.
Network Data
A network data set containing the street network was necessary to
calculate the desired connectivity measures and create the project
buffers needed for many of the metrics. The Network Analyst tools
in ArcGIS (ESRI 2016d) requires a street network data set. The
most current and accessible network available was a 2013 street
network data set (ESRI 2013). The ArcGIS Online network data
set, which is updated regularly, was accessed in ArcGIS Desktop
using the Ready-To-Use-Service option. With this feature, the Gen-
erate Service Areas tool was used to create the required 8.05 km
(5 mi) and 0.81 km (0.5 mi) network buffers around each project.
This tool creates the network buffer around a point; thus, the access
points feature was initially used for the buffers. Later, the buffers
were dissolved into one buffer per pilot study project. Fig. 1 dis-
plays the four-county region and the associated 77 PSP buffers. The
8.05 km (5 mi) buffers were created using the default travel mode,
which corresponds to driving; however, the half mile buffers were
created by setting custom walking attributes.
Miscellaneous Data
To compute other metrics, additional data were needed beyond
the project and county data. Additional recreation features such as
fitness and recreational centers, boat access points, and preserved
areas were necessary in order to evaluate the metrics of non-PSP
density and the physical activity facility diversity index. Many of
these features were available on the online platform ESRI Business
Analyst by searching the physical activity establishments North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code (ESRI
2016b). In addition to Business Analyst, other recreation features
and physical activity establishments were downloaded from open
source data repositories such as PASDA (2004, 2013, 2015). In
addition to recreation features, a population US Census (2010) data
set at the MCD level was downloaded in order to compute metrics
such as population density.
Field Data Collection (Step 5)
In order to evaluate the impact of recreational project development
on the community, exploring the demand of the facilities is valu-
able. In this study, both trail and pool facilities were investigated
because data could be acquired using manual and field data collec-
tion equipment (trails) as well as contacting facility owners (pools).
Future work includes developing a process for gathering park
demand data given the challenge of multiple access points as well
as the multitude of park projects with varying amenities and features.
© ASCE 04018030-6
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030
Trail Data
To assess trail demand, both automatic and manual counting
methods were used. For the automatic counts, TRAFx (TRAFx
Research Ltd. 2016) infrared trail counters (passive) were installed
every 8.05 km (5 mi) (if applicable) of the trail facility, reflective of
the comfortable bikeshed distance. For six out of the seven trail
projects, only one counter was installed because the overall length
was less than 8.05 km (5 mi); but for one trail, two counters were
installed to more accurately count the trips over a distance further
than the 8.05 km (5 mi) bike distance. The counters were installed
on a mile marker or similar fixed object on point along the trail that
was reflective of traffic flow. A minimum of 12 days of data were
collected at each location, then the data were downloaded from the
counter to the computer for analysis.
For each counter that was installed in the field, a 2-h manual
count was conducted to evaluate mode split, directional split, error
adjustment, and other general characteristics about users (gender
and approximate age category). The manual counts were useful in
validating and determining the accuracy of the automatic counters.
Because the automatic equipment counts were based on a change in
infrared (temperature) as users walk by, when users walk in groups
or side-by-side, the accuracy can be affected. Therefore, manual
counts can be used to calculate an error adjustment factor by divid-
ing the manual count total by the number recorded by the counter
during that time (Ryus et al. 2014). Then, the error adjustment fac-
tor is applied to the automatic count data for a more accurate result.
In addition, because the counters do not distinguish between modes
or determine directional split, the additional information can be
useful in finding trends beyond just the number of users.
Another adjustment was used for linear trails because it was ex-
pected that users would be passing the counters twice (down and
back); therefore, the results were divided by two, also referred to as
a two-way adjustment factor (TRAFx Research Ltd. 2016). For the
one linear trail with two counters installed, a “divide by 2.4” factor
was used, based on the results of a previous study, which found that
users passed the 1.0 and 8.5 mi counters an average of 2.4 times
during one trip (Oswald Beiler et al. 2012). However, for looped
trails, this factor was not applied because it was assumed that trail
users would typically complete the loop and exit the facility, pass-
ing the counter once.
Expansion factors were also applied to estimate the number of
trips per year for each facility. For each facility, the average daily
total count in the month of July was used to estimate the number of
trips for the month of July. The National Bicycle and Pedestrian
Documentation Project (NBPDP 2009) provides extrapolation fac-
tors to estimate the annual total trips from monthly data. The long
winter–short summer factor was used to expand the July totals,
which make up 13% of the annual totals, to the number of trips per
year (NBPDP 2009). After the automatic data were downloaded,
the TRAFx DataNet software was used for the analysis process in
order to calculate trips per year (TRAFx Research Ltd. 2016) as
well as other results such as average hourly, weekly, and monthly
counts. Trips per year became the input for the trail demand metric,
and the manual count results were used to determine the trail mode
split metric.
Pool Demand
As a component of project usage analysis, current demand for the
PSP pools within the pilot study was carried out through direct in-
quiry to appropriate pool representatives. Through online directory
searches on borough or township websites and via direct calls to
borough offices, a representative was identified for each pool.
The representative was contacted with the request for a reported
average monthly attendance for the respective pool. The majority
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Five Mile Geodetic Buffer
Five Mile Network Buffer
DCNR Park
Park Access Point
Sample Household
Five Mile Road Network Route
Street Network
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Study area and 5-mi network project buffers. (GIS source data from PA DCNR 2014, 2015; ESRI 2013, 2016d; PASDA 2013, 2014a, b; RTI
International 2015; Centre County GIS 2015, 2016; Columbia County GIS 2015; Clinton County GIS 2006, 2015; Dauphin County GIS 2016;
Lycoming County GIS 2015; Juniata County GIS 2015; Mifflin County GIS 2010; Montour County GIS 2009; Northumberland County GIS
2015; Potter County GIS 2016; Schuylkill County GIS 2016; Snyder County GIS 2015; Tioga County GIS 2016; Union County GIS 2015.)

of representatives were willing to follow up with the solicited data
and were able to provide a form of monthly attendance. Assuming
that the pool season spans from Memorial Day to Labor Day, all
attendances were standardized in the units of people/season. This
value of attendees per season became the input for the pool demand
metric.
Metric Application (Step 6)
Once all relevant data were collected, the metrics were applied to
the four-county pilot study region. The metrics in the categories of
density, connectivity, and physical activity facilities were applied
and calculated at both the MCD level (123 MCDs) and the project
buffer level (77 project buffers). The metrics in the categories of
project demand and project magnitude were applied directly to the
project and facility type.
For all metrics except those under the project demand category,
GIS was used in the analysis process. Table 3 indicates the specific
process and equations used for the metrics analyzed in GIS. Metrics
such as household density (shown at the MCD level in Fig. 2) and
PSP density involved creating a spatial join between the MCDs and
buffers and the layer of interest, households, and PSP, respectively.
Similarly, the physical activity facility diversity index (shown at the
project buffer level in Fig. 3) and non-PSP density metrics involved
joining the eight categories of physical activity establishments to
the MCDs and buffers in order to sum the number of facilities fall-
ing into the specific area. The connectivity measures involved tak-
ing various ratios of links, intersections, and dangle nodes. Links
were made by “unsplitting” the road network, intersections created
by intersecting the road network with itself, and dangle nodes using
the “feature vertices to point” tool. Once these three features had
been extracted from the road network, measures like link-node ratio

© ASCE 04018030-7 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030

 Table 3. GIS methodology for metric applications
Category Measure Calculation GIS method
Density Walkable household # of households per ½ mi Selection by location
density network distance buffer
Household density # of households per area Selection by location
Population density # of people per area Selection by location
Connectivity Roadway network Average network distance Network analyst: new OD cost matrix
distance from each household to (destinations = PSPs, origins = households)
nearest PSP access point
Geodetic distance to Euclidian distance from “Near” tool
project household to nearest PSP
access point
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Route directness Network distance/geodetic Field calculator

distance
Link-node ratio # Links (streets) per area/#
nodes per area
Average block length Sum of link length per unit
of area/# of nodes per unit
of area
Intersection density # real nodes/area
Connected # real nodes/# total nodes
node-ratio (CNR) (real + dangle)
Roadway density Total street length per unit
of area/area
Physical activity facility Physical activity facility # of physical activity facility
development diversity index types present in area/8
Non-PSP density # Non-PSP physical activity
facilities/area
PSP density # PSP/area
Project magnitude Trail length Total length of trail
Pool facility area Total area of pool
Park facility area Total area of park
Note: Project demand metrics did not require GIS.
Field calculator
Spatial join (sum total length of streets in area) → spatial join
(sum total nodes in area) → field calculator (divide)
Spatial join (sum nodes), field calculator
Real nodes: (1) intersect (analysis): input features = road network:
intersect with itself → (2) delete identical (data management):
removes superfluous instances
Dangle nodes: feature vertices to point type → dangle
Field calculator: Sum(Street_Length)/MCD_Area
Spatial join (sum each of the eight individual physical activity
facility types).
Spatial join (sum each of the eight individual physical activity
facility types). Sum all categories in excel and divide by area
spatial join (sum PSP), field calculator
Field calculator: Shape_Length
Field calculator: Shape_Area
Field calculator: Shape_Area

could be computed. Fig. 4 displays the link-node ratio for two dif-
ferent MCDs, one with a low ratio and one with a high ratio, as well
as showing the links, intersections, and dangle nodes.
Roadway network distance and geodetic distance to the project
were the most complex GIS metrics. Both involved using Model-
Builder to automate the complex process. Roadway network distance
required the use of Network Analyst in order to calculate the network
distance from each household to the PSP access point. Fig. 5 shows
the difference between the roadway network distance and geodetic
distance for a sample of households to a PSP park.
Results
For each metric, the GIS or field data collection application was
completed. The results are summarized in Table 4, showing the aver-
age value as well as the range of values calculated for each metric.
An interesting finding was that the project buffers, in general, have
greater area than the MCDs. Therefore, for measures such as road-
way network distance and geodetic distance, it makes sense that the
average distance from household to project is greater for the project
buffer application than the MCD application. Although the average
values for the roadway network distance and geodetic distance are
lower for the MCD application, the route directness for the project
application is lower. This implies that although households may, on
average, be further from the PSP in the project buffers, the routes are
overall more direct.
Another interesting finding is that the average walkable house-
hold density is larger than the average household density. The
household density, in general, is greater in the 0.81 km (0.5 mi)
buffer than the 8.05 km (5 mi) buffer, suggesting that households
are generally clustered around the PSP. For some PSPs, the project
buffer-level and MCD-level application of the physical activity di-
versity index both resulted in a value of 1.00, which means that
there is at least one establishment for all eight categories of physical
activity facility present at both levels. Surprisingly, some MCDs
have no physical activity facility, whereas within a project buffer,
the minimum is two types of facilities. Finally, it is interesting to
note the wide range of trips per year for the trail demand metric,
from 880 to 95,000, as well as the wide range for pool demand,
from 7,300 to 27,000, reflective of the diversity of project scale
and usage.
In order to further analyze the results, statistical analysis was
performed using correlations between metric results. The metric
correlations as well as the findings, specifically when comparing
the project buffer-level and MCD-level application, are discussed
in depth.
Metric Correlation
In order to evaluate the relationship between the transportation and
land use metrics, a correlation table was created comparing each
metric to each other (except for project magnitude metrics, which
were only compared to project demand metrics due to correlation
relevance). By comparing each metric to each other, there is the
ability to determine correlations between project characteristics
and network accessibility. The Pearson product-moment correla-
tion coefficient (also referred to as Pearson’s r) calculation was
used to determine the statistical measurement of the correlation

© ASCE 04018030-8 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Household density application at the MCD level. (GIS source data from PASDA 2014a, b; US Census 2010; Centre County GIS 2015, 2016;
Columbia County GIS 2015; Clinton County GIS 2006, 2015; Dauphin County GIS 2016; Lycoming County GIS 2015; Juniata County GIS 2015;
Mifflin County GIS 2010; Montour County GIS 2009; Northumberland County GIS 2015; Potter County GIS 2016; Schuylkill County GIS 2016;
Snyder County GIS 2015; Tioga County GIS 2016; Union County GIS 2015.)

(linear association) between the two sets of metric values. The cor-
relation between the two sets of metric values was completed for
both project buffers and MCD jurisdictions.
Table 5 displays the results of the metric correlation analysis.
Within each cell, there are two correlations with the upper value
reflective of the project (project magnitude and project demand
metrics) or project buffer-level application and the lower value re-
flective of the MCD-level application. Also, the first metric, area,
was added to the statistical analysis in order to explore relationships
between project area, MCD area, and the transportation and land
use metrics. Very strong positive correlations are indicated with a
bold font (values from −1.0 to −0.8 and 0.8 to 1.0). Some specific
highlights of the metric correlations are described subsequently:
• Population density versus trail demand—A very strong cor-
relation between these two variables indicates that population
density is a solid predictor for trail demand, and also reflects
the fact that the population surrounding a trail facility, based on
the 8.05 km (5 mi) network buffer, has a direct impact on the
actual usage the trail receives. In contrast, Walkable Household
Density is not correlated with trail demand, suggesting trail
usage is supported by a larger region (beyond the half mile
walking distance to the trail) and that trail users are willing to
travel further to access a trail in comparison to other community
facilities, such as a pool.
• Pool demand versus walkable household density—Even though
the population density within 8.05 km (5 mi) around a pool is
not an indicator for pool demand, the household density within
0.81 km (0.5 mi) walkable distance of the pool does strongly
correlate to pool demand, suggesting that walkability for pools
is an indicator of pool usage.
• Intersection density versus population and household density—
A strong positive correlation between intersection density and

© ASCE 04018030-9 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Physical activity facility diversity index applied at the project buffer level. Scale 0–1 based on presence of physical activity diversity types.
Project buffers are based on a 5-mi network buffer around the project. (GIS source data from PA DCNR 2014, 2015; ESRI 2013, 2016a; PASDA
2004, 2013, 2014a, b, 2015; Centre County GIS 2015, 2016; Columbia County GIS 2015; Clinton County GIS 2006, 2015; Dauphin County GIS
2016; Lycoming County GIS 2015; Juniata County GIS 2015; Mifflin County GIS 2010; Montour County GIS 2009; Northumberland County GIS
2015; Potter County GIS 2016; Schuylkill County GIS 2016; Snyder County GIS 2015; Tioga County GIS 2016; Union County GIS 2015.)

population and household density metrics validates the fact that
areas with more intersections tend to be more compact in density
and development. Fig. 6 displays the relationship of intersection
density versus household density based on project type (park,
pool, and trail). In this particular relationship, there is a strong
positive correlation for all three project types, as represented by
the fairly linear upward trend line. This relationship relates to pre-
vious studies that confirm that these measures are interconnected
(Ewing and Cervero 2010). Ewing and Cervero (2010) further
suggested that intersection density is the single most important
measure of walkability.
• Roadway network distance versus geodetic distance—A strong
positive correlation between these two metrics confirms that
the roadway network reflects a similar “shortest pathway” ap-
proach and avoids indirect routes within the project buffer. Fig. 7
displays the strong statistical correlation between these two
metrics. Out of the three project types, pools are typically closer
in terms of both roadway network and geodetic distance.
Similar to Figs. 6 and 7, additional analysis of project type
(park, pool, and trail) can be explored for all metric correlations
as well as in relation to similar project characteristics (such as area,
demand, etc.).
In terms of statistical significance, p-values were calculated
for each correlation (both MCD and project level). Correlations
that were found to be statistically significant (less than 0.05)
are indicated by an asterisk in Table 5. For the MCD level, a ma-
jority of the correlations were statistically significant, excluding
those involving route directness and physical activity diversity
index. For the project level, there were more correlations that
were not significant, suggesting that, in general, the larger scale
at the MCD level provides more statistically significant results
between the transportation and land use metrics. However, it is

© ASCE 04018030-10 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030

 Real Nodes Dangle Nodes Road Network Municipal Boundary
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 0.5 1 2
Miles

Fig. 4. Example of link-node ratio metric application. (GIS source data from ESRI 2013, 2016d; Centre County GIS 2015, 2016; Columbia County
GIS 2015; Clinton County GIS 2006, 2015; Dauphin County GIS 2016; Lycoming County GIS 2015; Juniata County GIS 2015; Mifflin County GIS
2010; Montour County GIS 2009; Northumberland County GIS 2015; Potter County GIS 2016; Schuylkill County GIS 2016; Snyder County GIS
2015; Tioga County GIS 2016; Union County GIS 2015.)

interesting to note that for the physical diversity index metric, a
majority of the correlations were less than 0.05, suggesting that
the smaller-scale project buffer level produced more significant
results. For the demand metrics, pool demand had more statisti-
cally significant correlations than trail demand; however, future
work includes gathering more data for trails and pools in order
to further investigate the relationships.
Project and MCD Comparison
In addition to comparing the metrics, exploring the correlations with
respect to the differences in the project buffer level versus the MCD
level analysis is valuable. The following is a list of selected corre-
lations that varied between project and MCD, with a corresponding
description suggesting the reasoning behind the difference.
• PSP density versus non-PSP density—A strong correlation be-
tween PSP density and non-PSP density for MCDs suggests
that PSPs are located in MCDs that already have high densities
of other recreational facilities. However, this is not the case for
project buffers (low positive correlation of 0.282). Therefore,
non-PSPs are more likely to be observed in the same areas of
PSPs with MCDs, but not as frequently in project buffers. This
relationship reflects the fact that geographic jurisdictions are
more officially organized through the jurisdiction of MCDs,
which have governmental organizations regulating the presence
of recreational facilities (similarities in funding efforts, organi-
zational commitment to recreational facilities, employee exper-
tise, etc.), whereas project buffers, without a similar oversight in
planning or funding, contain a more random presence of both
PSPs and non-PSPs.
• Link-node ratio versus roadway network distance and geodetic
distance—A strong negative correlation at the MCD level sug-
gests that people who live close to a project are more likely to
live in a connected street network. However, for the project buf-
fer level, there was no correlation, which is most likely a result
of the project buffers being predefined based on a 8.05 km
(5 mi) network buffer from the project. Therefore, households
included in the project analysis already reflect the nature of the

© ASCE 04018030-11 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Example of route directness metric application at the project buffer level. Project buffer is based on a 5-mi network buffer around the project. (GIS
source data from ESRI 2013, 2016d; Centre County GIS 2015, 2016; Columbia County GIS 2015; Clinton County GIS 2006, 2015; Dauphin County
GIS 2016; Lycoming County GIS 2015; Juniata County GIS 2015; Mifflin County GIS 2010; Montour County GIS 2009; Northumberland County GIS
2015; Potter County GIS 2016; Schuylkill County GIS 2016; Snyder County GIS 2015; Tioga County GIS 2016; Union County GIS 2015.)

street network, so variations between low and high connectivity
are not as recognized within project buffers.
• MCD area versus roadway network and geodetic distance—A
strong positive correlation between these variables reflects
the connection between jurisdictional size and traveling connec-
tivity. MCDs that have small jurisdictional area, some less than
1.61 km (1 sq mi), are are well connected and thus have lower
distance averages, whereas large MCDs tend to have more
sprawling populations and less road connectivity, leading to
higher distance averages. In contrast, when analyzing the project
area, there is a weak negative correlation with the two distance
measures, which is again reflective of the fact that the project
buffer was created based on the network (street) distance of
8.05 km (5 mi) around the project. The average distance to
the project will be higher for projects with smaller buffers be-
cause the road network surrounding this project is less direct.
However, for a project buffer with a larger area, the households
surrounding these projects are more connected via dense road
infrastructure, producing a smaller average distance from house-
hold to project.
Connection to Public Health
The focus of this pilot study research is evaluating transportation
and recreational project development using metrics; however,
understanding how health agencies and organizations can use
the information in order to determine patterns can be explored
in preparation for connecting the process to public health measures.
The Geisinger Health System region was used as part of the pilot
study because the four-county region falls within the Geisinger
service area. To expand the pilot study, future work can include
expanding the study to the entire 31-county service region using
the Geisinger electronic health record (EHR) data. The process

© ASCE 04018030-12 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030


Table 4. Summary of metric results
Metric
© ASCE
Area
Walkable household density
Household density
Population density
Roadway network distance
Geodetic distance
Route directness
Link-node ratio
Average block length
Intersection density
Connected node ratio
Roadway density
Physical activity facility
diversity indexb
Non-PSP density
PSP density
Trail demand
Pool demand
Trail length
Pool facility area
Park facility area
a
Only including MCDs with PSP (n ¼ 55).
b
Scale: (0 to 1) based on presence of eight physical activity facility types.
04018030-13
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Project buffers application (n ¼ 77) average (range) MCD application (n ¼ 123) average (range)
68.25 (4.90–260.81) sq km 26.35 (1.89–100.70) sq mi 49.88 (0.26–206.6) sq km 19.26 (0.10–79.77) sq mi
462.5 (0–1,793.98) no. per sq km 1,197.92 (0–4,646.40) no. per sq mi —
109.80 (1.62–280.16) no. per sq km 284.39 (4.20–725.61) no. per sq mi 128.25 (0.03–1,979.3) no. per sq km 332.18 (0.08–5,126.41) no. per sq mi
5,497.27 (1.05–171,338.78) no. per sq km 14,237.93 (2.73–44,367.44) no. per sq mi 286.54 (0.51–3,434.65) no. per sq km 742.15 (1.31–8,895.75) no. per sq mi
4.38 (2.33–6.81) km 2.72 (1.45–4.23) mi 2.45 (0.34–9.26) km 1.52 (0.21–5.74) mia
3.45 (1.67–5.06) km 2.14 (1.04–3.14) mi 1.77 (0.26–6.13) km 1.10 (0.16–3.81) mia
1.27 (1.14–1.46) 1.38 (1.06–1.63)
1.49 (1.31–1.65) 1.42 (1.11–1.91)
0.43 (0.24–1.96) km 0.27 (0.15–1.22) mi 0.61 (0.13–1.51) km 0.38 (0.08–0.94) mi
14.99 (2.66–36.63) no. per sq km 38.83 (6.88–94.88) no. per sq mi 16.32 (0.46–167.70) no. per sq km 42.28 (1.20–434.34) no. per sq mi
0.82 (0.69–0.89) 0.75 (0.53–0.95)
6.03 (3.33–11.21) km per sq km 9.70 (5.35–18.03) mi per sq mi 4.98 (0.90-39.90) km per sq km 8.01 (1.44–64.19) mi per sq mi
0.77 (0.25–1.00) 0.40 (0–1.00)
0.67 (0.08–6.73) no. per sq km 1.73 (0.22–17.42) no. per sq mi 0.67 (0–5.49) no. per sq km 1.74 (0–14.22) no. per sq mi
0.07 (0–0.21) no. per sq km 0.17 (0–0.54) no. per sq mi 0.135 (0–1.99) no. per sq km 0.35 (0–5.15) no. per sq mi
30,000 (880–95,000) no. trips per year —
13,000 (7,300–27,000) no. attendees per season —
4.44 (0.58–15.39) km 2.76 (0.36–9.56) mi —
10,683.71 (6,191.7–16,106.50) sq m 2.64 (1.53–3.98) ac. —
80,896.73 (849.84– 1,701,987.91) sq m 19.99 (0.21–420.57) ac. —
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 5. Metric correlation analysis for project/project buffer and MCD level application
Physical

© ASCE
Walkable Roadway Average Connected activity Pool
household Household Population network Geodetic Route Link-node block Intersection node Roadway diversity Non-PSP PSP Trail Pool Trail facility
Metrics Area density density density distance distance directness ratio length density ratio density index density density demand demand length area
Areaa 1.00 0.058 −0.001 0.376b −0.252b −0.173 −0.237b −0.152 −0.371b 0.016 0.017 −0.322b 0.377b −0.209 0.053 0.482 −0.702 — —
1.00 — −0.409b −0.444b 0.868b 0.874b 0.269b 0.657b 0.610b −0.479b −0.628b −0.524b 0.162 −0.466b −0.409b — — — —
Walkable household — 1.00 0.522b 0.342b −0.595 −0.520b −0.285b 0.491b −0.457b 0.489b 0.490b 0.253 0.157 −0.058 0.260b 0.063 0.866b — —
density 1.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Household density — 1.00 0.835b −0.119 −0.149 0.069 0.767b −0.625b 0.991b 0.790b 0.767 0.462b 0.273b 0.853b 0.533 0.715b — —
1.00 0.969b −0.469b −0.486b −0.184 0.647b −0.501b 0.937b 0.577b 0.818b 0.039 0.630b 0.637b — — — —
Population density — — — 1.00 −0.154b −0.170 0.020 0.559b −0.576b 0.859b 0.669b 0.603 0.632b 0.288b 0.816b 0.917b −0.006 — —
1.00 −0.528b −0.548b −0.181 0.675b −0.547b 0.950b 0.610b 0.835b 0.112 0.736b 0.664b — — — —
Roadway network — — — — 1.00 0.936b 0.327b 0.023 0.364b −0.120 −0.084b 0.089 −0.283b −0.001 −0.005 −0.385 −0.769 — —
distance 1.00 0.990b 0.412b −0.773b 0.799b −0.581b −0.779b −0.671b 0.092 −0.584b −0.571b — — — —
Geodetic distance — — — — — 1.00 −0.020 −0.041 0.298b −0.164 −0.128 −0.012 −0.286b −0.063 −0.013 −0.431 −0.760b — —
1.00 0.307b −0.803b 0.791b −0.603b −0.806b −0.699b 0.110 −0.612b −0.598b — — — —
Route directness — — — — — — 1.00 0.175 0.213 0.105 0.116 0.271b −0.043 0.163 0.022 −0.120 −0.200 — —
1.00 −0.224 0.293b −0.204 −0.270b −0.204 0.100 −0.080 −0.175 — — — —
Link-node ratio — — — — — — — 1.00 −0.289b 0.753b 0.935b 0.647 0.232b 0.058 0.483b −0.136 0.748b — —
1.00 −0.493b 0.733b 0.924b 0.789b −0.104 0.644b 0.628b — — — —
Average block — — — — — — — — 1.00 −0.620b −0.359b −0.167 −0.532b 0.029 — −0.438 −0.508 — —
length 1.00 −0.582b −0.531b −0.581b −0.249b −0.563b 0.551b — — — —
−0.475b
Intersection density — — — — — — — — — 1.00 0.785b 0.792 0.508b 0.305b 0.857b 0.498 0.641 — —
1.00 0.650b 0.924b 0.068 0.759b 0.734b — — — —
Connected node — — — — — — — — — — 1.00 0.577 0.360b −0.015 0.554b 0.037 0.720b — —

04018030-14
ratio 1.00 0.678b −0.039 0.575b 0.537b — — — —
Roadway density — — — — — — — — — — — 1.00 0.237b 0.544b 0.631b 0.298 0.656 — —
1.00 −0.034 0.686b 0.668b — — — —
Physical activity — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.00 0.153 0.537b 0.515 −0.398 — —
diversity index 1.00 0.200b 0.012 — — — —
Non-PSP density 1.00

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030

— — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.282b 0.334 −0.088 — —
1.00 0.836b — — — —
PSP density — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.00 0.602 0.388 — —
1.00 — — — —
Trail demand — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.00 — 0.690b —
1.00 — — —
Pool demand — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.00 — −0.281
1.00 — —
Trail length — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.00 —
1.00 —
Pool facility area — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.00
1.00
Note: Within each cell, the upper row is either the project or the project buffer level results, whereas the lower row is the MCD level results; bold font indicates very strong correlation (−1.0 to −0.8 or 0.8 to 1.0);
park facility area metric was not included in the table because park demand data were not part of the pilot study (no correlations).
a
Area metric was added to analyze project buffer area and MCD area in relation to the transportation and land use metrics.
b
p-value is less than 0.05, which indicates it is statistically significant (if there is no superscript, then p-value is more than 0.05 and is not statistically significant).

J. Urban Plann. Dev.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Intersection density versus household density by project type.
Fig. 7. Roadway network distance versus geodetic distance.
for connecting the pilot study process to public health metrics using
EHRs as well as more accessible publically available data are dis-
cussed below.
Process
Once the transportation and land use metrics have been applied,
there is the opportunity for connecting with a public health agency.
For the pilot study, the Geisinger Health System is the established
primary health service for the four-county region. Using the clinic’s
electronic health record data (EHR) (individual patient health re-
cords), public health metrics can be aggregated spatially. Metrics
such as body mass index (BMI), incidences of cardiovascular dis-
eases, and childhood obesity rates can be gathered for all patients
within the study area within the EHR data. Any confounding var-
iables should be identified up front and minimized as completed in
past studies (Jarrett et al. 2010). Then, spatial as well as temporal
comparisons can be made, as listed subsequently:
• Temporal—Compare patient health before and after project
development. For example, identifying a high-demand trail fa-
cility and exploring average BMI pre-trail development versus
average BMI post-trail development.
• Spatial—Compare patient health for those living near project
development or other physical activity facilities, as well as those
within a connected network. For example, determine an area
with a high density and diversity of physical activity facilities
© ASCE 04018030-15
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030
versus an area without and compare rates of cardiovascular
diseases.
The steps completed so far serve as the foundation for estab-
lishing the connection with health agencies and quantifying land
use development. Due to the scope of this pilot study, as well as
limitations associated with accessing Geisinger’s EHR data, com-
prehensive connections are identified as future work; however, the
following section discusses a preliminary connection to public
health using publically accessible data. This preliminary connec-
tion at the aggregate level should be used in terms of the example
process that can be applied once the Geisinger EHR data are ac-
quired (or any other direct health care system dataset).
Preliminary Connection
A preliminary connection was made between the transportation and
land use metrics and an open-source 2015 neighborhood map of US
obesity rates (RTI International 2015). Given the year of release, all
DCNR projects would have been completed before the data were
collected for the open-source maps. Obesity rates were provided at
the neighborhood level and were first aggregated to the MCD level
in the form of an average rate (Fig. 8). Similarly, the obesity rates
were also aggregated to the project buffer level.
Performing correlational analysis at both the project buffer and
MCD levels returned two interesting relationships. Observing a
−0.61 correlation between non-PSP density and average obesity
rate metrics at the project buffer level provides insight into a po-
tential connection between the presence of recreational facilities
and average obesity rates in the surrounding service area. The
p-value for this correlation was less than 0.05, indicating that it
is statistically significant. Another potential relationship observed
was that of a −0.39 correlation between trail demand and average
obesity rates at the project buffer level, perhaps reflecting the return
of trail infrastructure on increasing public health. These two cor-
relations were both at the project buffer level, whereas the corre-
lations between MCD transportation metrics and average obesity
rates were weak. This may highlight the importance of installing
trail infrastructure in areas where public health is at a low because
the findings suggest that trails most directly impact the public
health of the populations immediately surrounding them, within
a 8.05 km (5 mi) network buffer.
Further analysis using the p-value significance test shows that at
the MCD and project buffer levels, metric correlations such as aver-
age block length, connected node ratio, and link node ratio are stat-
istically significant when compared to average obesity rates. At the
project level, the non-PSP density metric is also statistically signifi-
cant, which suggests that when looking at the broader number
of physical activity facilities at the smaller project level, there is
a significance in the relationship to average obesity. Again, the
exploration of confounding variables is recommended when com-
pleting a full investigation of correlations between health and land
use data (Jarrett et al. 2010).
Benefits
The process developed is one that can be conducted by transpor-
tation planning agencies in connection with public health organi-
zations in order to compare development factors such as density,
connectivity, physical activity facilities, project demand, and
project magnitude with health related measures. This increased col-
laboration can allow for a robust understanding of how a local com-
munity is developed and how land use decisions can influence
health and wellness. For example, the results of this study show
that walkability to a pool facility has a high correlation to demand.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Percent Obese Population
Obesity Rate (Frequency)
27.68 (1)
27.69 - 37.56 (16)
37.57 - 38.42 (18)
38.43 - 39.00 (20)
39.01 - 40.05 (15)
40.06 - 41.18 (5)
41.19 - 48.05 (2)
Area with data avaliable
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Obesity rates at the project buffer level. Project buffers are based on a 5-mi network buffer around the project. (GIS source data from PA DCNR,
2014, 2015; ESRI 2013, 2016d; PASDA, 2013, 2014a, b; RTI International 2015; Centre County GIS 2015, 2016; Columbia County GIS 2015; Clinton
County GIS 2006, 2015; Dauphin County GIS 2016; Lycoming County GIS 2015; Juniata County GIS 2015; Mifflin County GIS 2010; Montour
County GIS 2009; Northumberland County GIS 2015; Potter County GIS 2016; Schuylkill County GIS 2016; Snyder County GIS 2015; Tioga County
GIS 2016; Union County GIS 2015.)

A public health agency could then further explore the rate of child-
hood obesity in areas with and without pools. Also, a local planning
agency can identify priority locations for pool facilities and other
recreational projects. Understanding the relationship between the
built environment and public health and wellness can better inform
future urban planning decision-making processes.
Discussion
The methodology used and results obtained in the pilot study
application are valuable in providing a global process for explor-
ing transportation and recreational projects. Transportation and
land use agencies across the county can use this pilot study as an
example of how to quantify development patterns across multiple
jurisdictions and allow for the opportunity to connect with health
care organizations in their area. The following reflections on the
research include specific limitations throughout the study as well
as recommendations on future work.
Limitations
The following list includes highlights of the limitations and as-
sumptions made, many of which have already been described
previously.
1. Project data were based on the PA DCNR grant database and
GIS shapefile; therefore, any missing information (or projects
outside of the study timeframe or scope) was not included in
the study [see “Project Inventory (Step 2)”]
2. Trail demand was based on a minimum of 2 weeks of automatic
counts and one 2-h manual count for adjustments. Therefore,
yearly trip rates are based on seasonal adjustment factors for
long winter-short summer geographic regions. Also, linear trails
were analyzed using a two-way adjustment factor of dividing by

© ASCE 04018030-16 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030

 2, or 2.4 for the trail longer than 8.05 km (5 mi), to account for
users passing the counters multiple times (converts counter hits
to trips).
3. Project network buffers were based on a 8.05 km (5 mi) network
distance from the project access point(s), and, in order to avoid
the modified areal unit problem (analyzing spatial data based on
predetermined boundaries such as county boundaries), adjacent
counties outside of the four-county region were included for a
more comprehensive analysis of the project buffers.
4. Pool demand data were based on the information provided by
the pool owners or operators (some facilities provided raw data,
whereas others provided a general value for average attendees
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
per day). Future work includes reassessing the pool demand by
having all pool owners or operators provide raw data for an en-
tire season in order to determine the demand.
5. The following assumptions were made with regard to geo-
graphic information systems and the spatial analysis component
of this research:
a. The residential designation for households across the 14
counties was determined based on existing structure type
and land use codes as well as a visual assessment of Google
Maps Street View (2016) and Google Earth (2016). Based on
the GIS files provided by the local sources, some of the at-
tribute fields were left blank or given ambiguous codes; thus,
judgment was used when determining which buildings to in-
clude as households.
b. Access points for projects were determined based on visual
assessment whenever the road network data set connected
with the facility boundaries. This assumption does not ac-
count for various other pedestrian paths or shortcuts that may
exist.
c. Both ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Desktop street networks
were used for different metric calculations due to the avail-
ability of GIS tools for metric applications.
Future Work
Because this is a pilot study focused on transportation and land use
metrics, recommendations are provided for future work. Future work
includes implementing the connection to public health measures with
the Geisinger electronic health record. This connection, described
previously, allows for an understanding of the development associ-
ations on public health, specifically with regard to transportation and
recreational projects. The following future work is recommended
based on the elements completed in the pilot study:
• Expand the study to the entire 31-county Geisinger Health Sys-
tem region as well as exploring applications in other geographical
regions.
• Include travel time metrics in addition to the distance mea-
sures already explored in this study. This would be particularly
valuable when analyzing an urban area where distance and
time are not necessarily similar due to traffic volumes and
congestion.
• Complete a demand analysis of the park projects using a com-
prehensive method for determining users entering and exiting
at multiple access points. This would complete the data for the
project demand metrics. Also, a comparison of the amenities
provided at the park facilities could be valuable because the
park projects widely varied based on form and function (e.g., a
facility with tennis courts versus a nature park).
• Perform a comprehensive cluster analysis based on similar pro-
ject types for all metrics to determine if there are any trends
when comparing park, pool, and trail projects in relation to the
five categories of metrics.
© ASCE 04018030-17
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030
• Explore similar characteristics of projects (including demand
and scale) across statistically significant correlations to identify
any additional trends in project impacts.
Conclusion
Bridging the gap between development decisions and the impact
on human health is valuable because efforts to promote sustainable
community development continue. Transportation and recreational
projects such as parks, pools, and trails provide the opportunity for
physical activity. Understanding patterns in the development of
these facilities, including measures such as demand, density, and
connectivity, can aid in future planning and funding.
This research included two primary goals: (1) develop a process
for analyzing sustainable transportation and recreation projects us-
ing project-specific and network-specific metrics; and (2) imple-
ment the process through a pilot study in central Pennsylvania.
The pilot study showed that trail demand was highly correlated to
population density within the project buffer, a 8.05 km (5 mi) net-
work distance from the project, whereas pool demand was highly
correlated to the walkable household distance of 0.81 km (0.5 mile)
network distance from the project. At the MCD level, MCDs with a
high density of PSPs also had a high density of non-PSPs, whereas
MCDs with a high link-node ratio corresponded with those that
had a lower average roadway network distance from project to
household. A preliminary connection to public health metrics using
publically accessible data (obesity rates) was used. Future work in-
cludes expanding the analysis to health measures both spatially
(trends in patient condition in reference to household and project
locations) and temporally (trends in patient condition over time be-
fore and after projects are developed) using individual health record
data. Understanding this relationship between the built environ-
ment (specifically recreational facilities) and health can further sup-
port the goal of building sustainable and healthy communities.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Bucknell Geisinger Research
Initiative (BGRI) for supporting this research, as well as the follow-
ing organizations for their efforts in support of the study: PA DCNR,
SEDA-COG GIS Department, Geisinger Health System, PA Bureau
of Forestry, owners and employees of the trail and pool projects
included in the study, as well as the following county GIS depart-
ments: Centre, Columbia, Clinton, Dauphin, Lycoming, Juniata,
Mifflin, Montour, Northumberland, Potter, Schuylkill, Snyder,
Tioga, and Union. With respect to all counties, these maps were
created using county geographic information system digital data,
but this is a secondary product and has not been verified and is
not authorized by the individual counties themselves.
References
Adams, E., F. Bull, and C. Foster. 2016. “Are perceptions of the environ-
ment in the workplace ‘neighbourhood’ associated with commuter
walking?” J. Transp. Health, 3 (4): 479–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jth.2016.01.001.
Appleyard, B. 2012. “Sustainable and healthy travel choices and built envi-
ronment.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2303 (1): 38–45. https://doi.org/10.3141
/2303-05.
Bakalar, N. 2016. “Walkable neighborhoods cut obesity and diabetes rates.”
The New York Times. Accessed June 10, 2016. http://well.blogs.nytimes
.com/2016/05/24/walkable-neighborhoods-cut-obesity-and-diabetes
-rates/?r=0.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Braun, L., D. Rodriguez, Y. Song, K. Meyer, C. Lewis, J. Reis, and P.
Gordon-Larson. 2016. “Changes in walking, body mass index and
cardiometabolic risk factors following residential location: Longitudinal
results from the CARDIA Study.” J. Transp. Health 3 (4): 426–439.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.08.006.
Buehler, R., T. Götschi, and M. Winters. 2016. “Moving toward active trans-
portation: How policies can encourage walking and bicycling.” Active
Living Research. Accessed June 10, 2016. http://activelivingresearch
.org/sites/default/files/ALR_Review_ActiveTransport_January2016.pdf.
Burbidge, S. K., and K. G. Goulias. 2009. “Evaluating the impact of neigh-
borhood trail development on active travel behavior and overall physical
activity of suburban residents.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2135 (1): 78–86.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2135-10.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Cannon, C., S. Thomas, R. Treffers, M. Paschall, L. Heumann, G. Mann, D.
Dunkell, and S. Nauenberg. 2013. “Testing the results of municipal
mixed-use zoning ordinances.” Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Accessed October 17, 2017. https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research
/2013/05/testing-the-results-of-municipal-mixed-use-zoning-ordinances
.html.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1999. “Physical activ-
ity and health: A report from the surgeon general.” Accessed October
17, 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/index.htm.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2010. “CDC recom-
mendations for improving health through transportation policy.”
Accessed June 14, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/transportation/docs
/final-cdc-transportation-recommendations-4-28-2010.pdf.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2015. “Data trends
and maps.” Accessed June 16, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data
/databases.html.
Center for Rural Pennsylvania. 2014. “Pennsylvania local parks and the
communities they serve.” Accessed June 16, 2016. http://www.paoutdoor
recplan.com/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_20030877.pdf.
Centre County GIS. 2015. Buildings, inactive parcels, unofficial county
zoning, GIS shapefile. Lewisburg, PA: SEDA-Council of Governments.
Centre County GIS. 2016. Parcels, GIS shapefile. Lewisburg, PA: SEDA-
Council of Governments.
Clinton County GIS. 2006. Zoning, GIS shapefile. Lewisburg, PA: SEDA-
Council of Governments.
Clinton County GIS. 2015. Buildings, parcels, structures, GIS shapefile.
Lewisburg, PA: SEDA-Council of Governments.
Cohen, D. A., D. Golinelli, S. Williamson, A. Sehgal, T. Marsh, and T. L.
McKenzie. 2009. “Effects of park improvements on park use and physi-
cal activity: Policy and programming implication.” Am. J. Preventive
Med. 37 (6): 475–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.07.017.
Columbia County GIS. 2015. Parcels, structures, zoning, GIS shapefile.
Lewisburg, PA: SEDA-Council of Governments.
Dalton, A. M., A. P. Jones, J. Panter, and D. Ogilvie. 2014. “Are
GIS-modelled routes a useful proxy for the actual routes followed
by commuters?” J. Transp. Health 2 (2): 219–229. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jth.2014.10.001.
Dannenberg, A. L., A. Ricklin, C. Ross, M. Schwartz, J. West, S. White,
and M. Wier. 2014. “Use of health impact assessment for transportation
planning.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2452 (1): 71–80. https://doi.org/10.3141
/2452-09.
Dauphin County GIS. 2016. Address points, land use, GIS shapefile.
Harrisburg, PA: Dauphin County Information Technology Dept.
Dill, J. 2004. “Measuring network connectivity for bicycling and walking.”
Presented at the Active Living Research Annual Conference, Del Mar,
CA. Accessed May 17, 2016. http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets
/Uploads/TRB2004-001550.pdf.
Ervin, D. 2016. “An introduction to the modifiable areal unit problem.”
Advanced Spatial Analysis. Accessed July 1, 2016. http://gispopsci
.org/maup/.
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2013. “Streets, ESRI
data and maps.” Accessed July 1, 2016. http://www.esri.com/data
/data-maps.
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2016a. “Business
analyst.” Accessed July 1, 2016. http://www.esri.com/software/business
analyst.
© ASCE 04018030-18
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2016b. “Travel modes.”
Accessed July 1, 2016. https://doc.arcgis.com/en/arcgisonline/reference
/travel-modes.htm.
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2016c. “What is
ModelBuilder?” Accessed July 1, 2016. http://desktop.arcgis.com/en
/arcmap/latest/analyze/modelbuilder/what-is-modelbuilder.htm.
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2016d. “What is the
ArcGIS network analyst extension?” Accessed July 1, 2016. http://
desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/what-is
-network-analyst-.htm.
Ewing, R., and R. Cervero. 2010. “Travel and the built environment.”
J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 76 (3): 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01944361003766766.
Falconer, C. L., S. D. Leary, A. S. Page, and A. R. Cooper. 2015. “The
tracking of active travel and its relationship with body composition
in UK adolescents.” J. Transp. Health 2 (4): 483–489. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jth.2015.09.005.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2011. “Pedestrian and bi-
cycle data collection.” US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. Accessed July 5, 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov
/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/pubs/pedbikedata.cfm.
Fitbit. 2017. “Fitbit.” Accessed July 15, 2016. http://www.fitbit.com.
Forsyth, A., and J. M. Oakes. 2014. “Workplace neighborhoods, walking,
physical activity, weight status, and perceived health.” Transp. Res. Rec.
2452 (1): 98–104. https://doi.org/10.3141/2452-12.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2011. “Final policy statement on the
eligibility of pedestrian and bicycle improvements under federal transit
law.” Fed. Reg. 76 (161): 52046–52053.
Google Earth. 2016. “Central Pennsylvania.” Accessed June 15, 2016.
https://www.google.com/earth/.
Google Maps Street View. 2016. “Central Pennsylvania.” Accessed June 15,
2016. https://www.google.com/maps/streetview/.
Gori, S., M. Nigro, and M. Petrelli. 2014. “Walkability indicators for
pedestrian-friendly design.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2464 (1): 38–45. https://
doi.org/10.3141/2464-05.
Harnik, P., and B. Welle. 2011. “From fitness zones to the medical mile:
How urban park systems can best promote health and wellness.” The
Trust for Public Land. Accessed June 15, 2016. http://cloud.tpl.org
/pubs/ccpe-health-promoting-parks-rpt.pdf.
Heinen, E., J. Panter, A. Dalton, A. Jones, and D. Ogilvie. 2015. “Socio-
spatial patterning of the use of new transport infrastructure: Walking,
cycling and bus travel on the Cambridgeshire guided busway.”
J. Transp. Health 2 (2): 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2014
.10.006.
Iseki, H., and M. Tingstrom. 2013. “A new approach in the GIS bikeshed
analysis with consideration of topography, street connectivity, and
energy consumption.” In Proc., Transportation Research Board Annual
Meeting 2013. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Jarrett, M., S. Gale, and C. Kontgis. 2010. “Spatial modeling in environ-
mental and public health research.” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
7 (4): 1302–1329. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7041302.
Juniata County GIS. 2015. Parcels, structures, GIS shapefile. Lewisburg,
PA: SEDA-Council of Governments.
Litman, T. 2003. “Economic value of walkability.” Transp. Res. Rec.
1828: 3–11. https://doi.org/10.3141/1828-01.
Lycoming County GIS. 2015. Address points, parcels, GIS shapefile.
Williamsport, PA: Lycoming County Planning Dept.
Meloni, I., A. Portoghese, M. Bez, and E. Spissu. 2009. “Effects of physical
activity on propensity for sustainable trips.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2134 (1):
43–50. https://doi.org/10.3141/2134-06.
Mifflin County GIS. 2010. Buildings, land use, GIS shapefile. Lewistown,
PA: Mifflin County GIS Dept.
Montour County GIS. 2009. Address points, land use, zoning, parcels, GIS
shapefile. Mechanicsville, PA: Montour County Planning Commission.
NBPDP (National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project). 2009.
NBPD fact sheet and status report. Portland, OR: Alta Planning and
Design.
Northumberland County GIS. 2015. Structures, parcels, GIS shapefile.
Sunbury, PA: Northumberland County Dept. of Information Services.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Oswald Beiler, M., K. Burkhart, and M. Nicholson. 2015. “Evaluating
the impact of rail-trails: A methodology for assessing travel demand
and economic impacts.” Int. J. Sustainable Transp. 9 (7): 509–519.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2013.825035.
Oswald Beiler, M., T. Kinnaman, K. Burkhart, and M. Nicholson. 2012.
“Buffalo Valley rail trail 2012 user survey and economic impact assess-
ment.” Prepared for Union County, PA and BVRT Committee. Accessed
June 16, 2016. http://bvrt.org/2012-BVRTUserSurveyEconomicImpact
Analysis.pdf.
PA DCNR (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resour-
ces). 2014. Local parks, GIS shapefile, DCNR open data. Harrisburg,
PA: PA DCNR.
PA DCNR (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resour-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 03/18/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ces). 2015. Pennsylvania DCNR bureau of recreation and conservation
projects funded through C2P2, GIS shapefile. Harrisburg, PA: PA
DCNR.
PA DCNR (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resour-
ces). 2016. “Grants.” Accessed June 15, 2016. https://www.grants.dcnr
.state.pa.us/Dashboard/Grants.
PA DCNR (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resour-
ces). 2017. “Trail grants.” Accessed October 17, 2017. http://www.dcnr
.pa.gov/Communities/Grants/TrailGrants/Pages/default.aspx.
PASDA (Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access). 2004. “Protected lands
inventory: Federal land, GIS shapefile, the conservation fund.” Ac-
cessed June 15, 2016. http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary
.aspx?dataset=884.
PASDA (Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access). 2013. “Explore PA trails:
Trails (points), GIS Shapefile, PA DCNR.” Accessed June 17, 2016.
http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=1551.
PASDA (Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access). 2014a. “County boundaries,
GIS shapefile.” Accessed June 15, 2016. http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci
/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=24.
PASDA (Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access). 2014b. “Municipal bounda-
ries, GIS shapefile.” Accessed June 15, 2016. http://www.pasda.psu.edu
/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=41.
PASDA (Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access). 2015. “Access points (fishing
and boating), GIS shapefile.” Accessed June 15, 2016. http://www
.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=984.
Potter County GIS. 2016. Parcels, structures, GIS shapefile. Coudersport,
PA: Potter County Dept. of GIS/Planning.
RTI International. 2015. “US obesity data, GIS shapefile, synthetic micro-
data.” Accessed July 1, 2016. http://synthpopviewer.rti.org/obesity
/download.html.
Ryus, P., E. Ferguson, K. M. Laustsen, R. J. Schneider, F. R. Proulx, T.
Hull, and L. Miranda-Moreno. 2014. Guidebook on pedestrian and
bicycle volume data collection. NCHRP Rep. 797. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board.
Samimi, A., and A. K. Mohammadian. 2010. “Health impacts of urban de-
velopment and transportation systems.” J. Urban Plann. Dev. 136 (3):
208–213. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000020.
Schauder, S., and M. Foley. 2015. “The relationship between active trans-
portation and health.” J. Transp. Health 2 (3): 343–349. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.jth.2015.06.006.
© ASCE 04018030-19
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(4): 04018030
Schlossberg, M., and C. Brehm. 2009. “Participatory geographic informa-
tion systems and active transportation.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2105 (1):
83–91. https://doi.org/10.3141/2105-11.
Schuylkill County GIS. 2016. Address points, parcels, GIS shapefile.
Pottsville, PA: Schuylkill County Office of Geographical Information.
Schwartz, B. S., W. F. Stewart, S. Godby, J. Pollak, J. DeWalle, S. Larson,
D. G. Mercer, and T. A. Glass. 2011. “Body mass index and the built
and social environments in children and adolescents using electronic
health records.” Am. J. Preventive Med. 41 (4): e17–e28. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.038.
Semler, C., A. Vest, K. Kingsley, S. Mah, W. Kittelson, C. Sundstrom,
and K. Brookshire. 2016. “Guidebook for developing pedestrian and
bicycle performance measures.” US Dept. of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration. Accessed June 15, 2016. https://www
.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/performance
_measures_guidebook/.
Silver, D., M. Giorgio, and T. Mijanovich. 2014. “Utilization patterns and
perceptions of playground users in New York City.” J. Community
Health 39 (2): 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-013-9771-0.
Snyder County GIS. 2015. Address points, land use, parcels, GIS shapefile.
Lewisburg, PA: Union County GIS Dept.
Stewart, O., H. Carlos, C. Lee, E. Berke, P. Hurvitz, L. Li, A. Moudon,
and M. Doescher. 2016. “Secondary GIS built environment data for
health research: Guidance for data development.” J. Transp. Health
3 (4): 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2015.12.003.
Tioga County GIS. 2016. Parcels, structures, GIS shapefile. Wellsboro,
PA: Tioga County GIS Dept.
TRAFx Research Ltd. 2016. “Trail infrared counters.” Accessed June 1,
2016. https://www.trafx.net/products.htm#IR-counter.
Tresidder, M. 2005. “Using GIS to measure connectivity: An exploration
of issues.” Portland State Univ., School of Urban Studies and Planning.
Accessed June 1, 2016. http://www.web.pdx.edu/∼jdill/Tresidder_Using
_GIS_to_Measure_Connectivity.pdf.
Union County GIS. 2015. Parcels, address points, GIS shapefile.
Lewisburg, PA: Union County GIS Dept.
Urban Land Institute. 2015. “Building healthy places toolkit: Strategies for
enhancing health in the built environment.” Accessed August 15, 2016.
http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULIDocuments/Building-Healthy-Places
-Toolkit.pdf.
US Census. 2010. “TIGER/line with selected demographic and economic
data.” Demographic Profile 1 County Subdivisions, GIS Shapefile,
2010 Census. Accessed June 14, 2016. https://www.census.gov/geo
/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html.
USDOT (US Department of Transportation). 2016. “Transportation and
health indicators.” Accessed June 14, 2016. https://www.transportation
.gov/transportation-health-tool/indicators.
WHO. 2014. “Health and economic assessment tool for cycling and walk-
ing.” Accessed June 16, 2016. http://www.heatwalkingcycling.org/.
Zhang, X., J. Lu, and J. B. Holt. 2011. “Modeling spatial accessibility to
parks: A national study.” Int. J. Health Geogr. 10 (1): 31. https://doi.org
/10.1186/1476-072X-10-31.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.