Meteorological gaps in audits of pedestrian environments: a scoping review

Meteorological gaps in audits of pedestrian environments: a scoping review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Meteorological gaps in audits of pedestrian environments: a scoping review Hayley Florence Drapeau, Pratima Singh, Faina Benyaminov, Kelsey Wright, and 6 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3789018/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Jul, 2024 Read the published version in BMC Public Health → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Weather and season are determinants of physical activity. Therefore, it is important to ensure built environments are designed to mitigate negative impacts of weather and season on pedestrians to prevent these losses. This scoping review aims to identify built environment audits of pedestrian environments developed for use during a specific weather condition or season. Secondly, this review aims to investigate gaps in the inclusion of relevant weather mitigating built environment features in pedestrian environment audit tools. Methods Following a standard protocol, a systematic search was executed in CINAHL, Medline and Web of Science to identify built environment audit tools of pedestrian spaces. Studies were screened, and data were extracted from selected documents by two independent reviewers (e.g., psychometric properties and audit items included). Audit items were screened for the inclusion of weather mitigating built environment features, and the tool’s capacity to measure temperature, precipitation, seasonal and sustainability impacts on pedestrians was calculated. Results The search returned 2823 documents. After screening and full text review, 27 articles were included. No tool was found that was developed specifically for use during a specific weather condition or season. Additionally, gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating items were found for all review dimensions (temperature, precipitation, seasonal, and sustainability items). Poorly covered items were: (1) temperature related (arctic entry presence, materials, textures, and colours of buildings, roads, sidewalk and furniture, and green design features); (2) precipitation related (drain presence, ditch presence, hazards, and snow removal features); (3) seasonal features (amenities, pedestrian scale lighting, and winter destinations and aesthetics); and (4) sustainability features (electric vehicle charging stations, renewable energy, car share, and bike share facilities). Conclusions Current built environment audit tools do not adequately include weather / season mitigating items. This is a limitation as it is important to investigate if the inclusion of these items in pedestrian spaces can promote physical activity during adverse weather conditions. Because climate change is causing increased extreme weather events, a need exists for the development of a new built environment audit tool that includes relevant weather mitigating features. Climate change weather season winter built environment physical activity walkability active transportation Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Background It is well established that environmental conditions, including weather and seasonality, affect physical activity (PA) [ 1 – 6 ]. Temperature and PA have a non-linear relationship, with PA increasing with temperature until approximately 25°C- 29°C then decreasing again, with dramatic PA decreases above 40°C [ 2 , 7 , 8 ]. Additionally, prolonged precipitation (e.g., snow, rain) can also reduce both leisure PA and active transport [ 7 , 9 ]. In older adults, snow and ice can be a large barrier to walking/wheeling leading to large decreases in PA during winter [ 10 ]. As global temperatures increase and severe weather conditions (e.g., precipitation events, drought) become more frequent [ 11 ], the negative impacts of environment on PA could become exacerbated [ 7 ]. This is of concern for public health since ~ 1/3 of the global population do not meet PA guidelines [ 12 ], contributing to an increased likelihood of death [ 13 ], and $ 67.5 billion in healthcare costs and productivity losses [ 14 ]. Though it is not possible to control the weather, and climate change impacts are already underway, outdoor areas can be modified to protect against weather conditions [ 15 ]. Features of urban design have also been found to worsen extreme weather events. For example, the heat island effect is a phenomenon where urban areas become significantly hotter than air temperatures due to insufficient vegetation and construction materials that reflect the heat [ 16 , 17 ]. To combat these issues and prepare for future climate changes, urban design and planning organizations have proposed and implemented features to modify local micro-climates and create urban spaces that might be cooler, hotter, or drier than surrounding areas [ 17 – 20 ]. Walking, cycling, and wheeling are among the most popular forms of PA [ 13 ], and heavily rely on supportive pedestrian streetscapes [ 4 , 21 , 22 ]. As weather and climate conditions change, and to mitigate further climate changes through promotion of active transportation modes like walking, it is increasingly important for urban design and planning to consider impact of weather on pedestrians. To understand the role of urban design features in promoting outdoor PA under various meteorological conditions and to address them adequately in different jurisdictions, it is necessary to measure the presence/extent/quality of these features in pedestrian environments [ 23 ]. However, the extent to which measures of the built and/or pedestrian environment address aspects of meteorological conditions is unknown. Recently, a few popular built environment audit tools [ 24 ] were scrutinized for their inability to adequately measure winter features of pedestrian built environments [ 25 ]. Thus, there is an urgent need for consistent and comprehensive assessment tools for the capacity of pedestrian spaces to mitigate impacts of weather and seasonality on pedestrians and their PA. This paper presents a comprehensive scoping review to identify audit tools designed for use during specific seasons or weather conditions. Additionally, those tools not specifically designed for season or weather condition, were assessed for their inclusion of built environment features that might mitigate impacts of weather and seasons on pedestrians (e.g., vegetation, building overhangs, winter aesthetics, transit availability). 2. Methods This scoping review was conducted following the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley [ 26 ], the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidelines [ 27 ], and the JBI systematic review of measurement properties [ 28 ]. The protocol can be found in Open Science Framework (OSF) and was publicly released through registration with the OSF platform ( https://osf.io/xytwv ) [ 29 ]. To ensure the quality of this review, we referred to the methodological guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (Fig. 1 ) [ 30 ]. 2.1 Search strategy Search terms and strategy were developed in consultation with a research librarian and in accordance with the PCC (population, concept, context) criteria [ 31 ]. Population was determined to be any user of a pedestrian environment and the context was open. Initially, the concept was tools specifically designed for or including weather/season-related built environment features. An initial search was conducted with terms from the concepts, audit tools, pedestrian environment, and meteorological factors. However, no such tools were found in peer-reviewed literature. Thus, the research question was changed to “what are the gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating built environment features in audit tools, regardless of if they were developed for a specific meteorological condition” from “investigate gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating built environment in audit tools which consider environmental conditions in their tool”. The context was updated to be any audit tools developed to investigate impacts of the built environment on pedestrian locomotion, and search terms associated with the concept “meteorological factors” were removed from the search. Eligible studies needed to be a methodological paper discussing development, reliability, or validity of a built environment audit tool for pedestrian environments and published in English. Excluded studies did not include built environment elements, were audit tools that were abbreviated versions of prior tools or were of unavailable audit tools. A literature search was conducted in CINAHL, Medline, and Web of Science. Additional file 1 contains the search strings. Retrieved studies were gathered in RAYYAN online platform to eliminate duplicate and irrelevant references [ 32 ]. After this initial process, the remaining publications were transferred to COVIDENCE web-based platform for study screening and data extraction [ 33 ]. 2.2. Study selection and data extraction Prior to screening, pilot testing was conducted to ensure high inter-rater agreement between reviewers. Title and abstract pilot screening was conducted by the first reviewer (PS) and a random second reviewer (either AW, FB, or SN). A random sample of 20 studies were screened and PS obtained high agreement with FB (kappa = 1) and SN (kappa = 0.9), and low agreement with AW (kappa = 0.3). Discrepancies between AW and PS were discussed with the reviewing team and with the third reviewer (HD) until consensus was reached. After pilot testing, two random reviewers (either PS, AW, FB, SN) subsequently assessed reference titles and abstracts. Disagreements were resolved with the assistance of an independent third reviewer (HD). Relevant articles were selected for full text screening. At this stage, each full text was evaluated based on the exclusion criteria by two random reviewers (either PS, FB or SN) with conflicts resolved by HD. Finally, included studies were hand searched by PS and any additional studies that met inclusion criteria were included for data extraction. From the selected studies, data were extracted for psychometric properties of audit tools, including number of built environment items, and reliability and validity testing results. Audit tool characteristics were also extracted including country of development, tool dimensions, and whether the tool was developed specifically for a certain season or weather condition. Next, items included in audit tools were extracted. To assess the existence of weather/seasonal limitations in audit tools, a list of built environment items that could either mitigate negative effects of weather on pedestrians or promote pedestrian locomotion was compiled after an extensive literature search conducted by the authors. The items were compiled into the following dimensions: temperature (e.g., building material, vegetation), precipitation (e.g., gutters, building overhangs), season (e.g., winter destinations, winter aesthetics), and sustainability (e.g., transit availability). 2.3 Synthesis of findings To compare differences in the inclusion of meteorological items across the included audit tools, capability appraisals for each meteorological dimension were calculated [ 34 ] then visualized with a heatmap created through ggplot2 in R (version 4.0.1) [ 35 , 36 ]. 3. Results The initial search returned 2823 documents. After removing duplicates, 2575 documents remained for title and abstract screening; of these, 75 were reviewed in full text. Ultimately, 19 studies from this primary search were included. Citation searches of included studies identified 8 additional documents, which resulted in a total of 27 included studies spanning from 2002 to 2020 (Fig. 1 ). Though many studies conducted reliability testing on their tool, few (29.63%) discussed the validity. The length of the items included in the audit tools varied from the smallest number of items included in the sidewalk assessment tool (n = 5 items) to large audits that contain up to 191 items (iCHART). There was not a large variation in country of development with most tools (59.26%) being developed in the United States (Table 1 ). Within the United States, tools were developed across many different regions with varying weather-related concerns. No tool was designed specifically for a certain meteorological condition or season. Furthermore, no audit tool considered meteorological factors specifically to be a dimension. Table 1 General characteristics of included audit tools identified from selected studies. Audit Tool Country Reliability Testing Validity Testing Included Dimensions Sidewalk Assessment Tool (SAT) [ 64 ] USA ✓ x None The Pedestrian Environmental Data Scan (PEDS) [ 65 ] USA ✓ x 1. Environment (built) 2. Pedestrian Facility 3. Road attributes 4. Walking/cycling environment St. Louis Analytic Audit Tool (AAT) [ 66 ] USA ✓ x 1. Land use 2. Transportation 3. Facilities 4. Aesthetics 5. Signage 6. Social Environment Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES) [ 67 ] Australia ✓ x 1. Walking 2. Streets 3. Safety 4. Permeability 5. Personal Safety 6. Traffic Safety 7. Streetscapes 8. Views 9. Facilities 10. Subjective Assessment Workplace Walkability Audit Tool (WWAT) [ 68 ] USA ✓ x None Irvine Minnesota Inventory Audit Tool (IMI) [ 69 ] USA ✓ ✓ 1. Accessibility 2. Pleasurably 3. Perceived Safety from Traffic 4. Perceived Safety from Crime Active Neighbourhood Checklist (ANC) [ 70 ] USA ✓ x 1. Land Use Characteristics 2. Sidewalks 3. Street Characteristics 4. Quality of the Environment for Pedestrians Senior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool (SWEAT-R) [ 71 ] USA ✓ x 1. Functionality 2. Aesthetics 3. Safety 4. Destinations School Environment Audit Tool (TCOPPE) [ 72 ] USA ✓ x 1. Land Uses 2. Street and Traffic Characteristics 3. Signage 4. Amenities 5. Social Disorder Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS) [ 73 ] USA ✓ x 1. Route (Land Use, Streetscape, Aesthetics and Social) 2. Segment 3. Crossing 4. Cul-de-Sac The Rural Pedestrian Environmental Audit Instrument (REPA) [ 74 ] USA ✓ ✓ 1. Destinations 2. Street Characteristics 3. Aesthetics 4. Social/Dynamic Environment Wisconsin Assessment of the Social and Built Environment (WASABE) [ 75 ] USA ✓ ✓ 1. Neighbourhood Characteristics 2. Transportation Environment 3. Destinations 4. Social Environment 5. Street Connectivity Madrid Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environment Scan (M-SPACES) [ 76 ] Spain ✓ x 1. Function 2. Safety 3. Aesthetics 4. Destinations MAPS global [ 77 ] Belgium ✓ x 1. Route (Land Use, Streetscape, Aesthetics and Social) 2. Segment 3. Crossing 4. Cul-de-Sac Revised Residential Environment Assessment Tool (REAT-2.0) [ 78 ] UK ✓ ✓ 1. Neighbourhood Condition 2. Natural Surveillance 3. Natural Elements 4. Urban Form Community Health Assessment in Rural Towns (iCHART) [ 79 ] USA ✓ x 1. Town Infrastructure 2. Resources 3. Residences Older People's Environments and CVD Rick (OPECR) [ 80 ] United Kingdom ✓ ✓ 1. Transport 2. Green Space 3. Advertisements 4. built environment 5. Aesthetics 6. Land Use Pregnancy, Infection, Nutrition Environmental Audit (PIN3) [ 81 ] USA ✓ x 1. Residential Land Use 2. Non-Residential Land Use 3. Public Space 4. Aesthics 5. Mobility Amenities, Transit and Road Characteristics Computer Assisted Neighbourhood Visual Assessment System (CANVAS) Audit Tool [ 82 ] USA ✓ x 1. Building 2. Vegetation and Parks 3. Litter 4. Street conditions 5. Sidewalk Conditions 6. Public Transit Pittsburgh Hill/Homewood Research on Neighbourhood Change and Health (PHRESH) [ 83 ] USA ✓ x 1. Land Use 2. Environment 3. Physical Activity Facility 4. Walking/Cycling Environment 5. Safety Signs 6. Amenities and litter 7. Gathering Places 8. Social Disorder 9. Noise Pollution 10. Physical Disorder SPOTLIGHT Virtual Audit Tool (S-VAT) [ 84 ] Netherlands ✓ ✓ 1. Walking Related Items 2. Cycling Related Items 3. Public Transport Items 4. Aesthetics Items 5. Land-Use Mix Items 6. Grocery Store Items 7. Food Outlets 8. Recreational Facility Items Modified S-VAT [ 85 ] Norway ✓ ✓ 1. Walking Related Items 2. Cycling Related Items 3. Public Transport Items 4. Aesthetics Items 5. Land-Use Mix Items 6. Grocery Store Items 7. Food Outlets 8. Recreational Facility Items School Walkability Index (SWI) [ 86 ] USA ✓ ✓ 1. Land Use Mix 2. Street Characteristics 3. Neighbourhood Perception FASTVIEW [ 87 ] ✓ ✓ 1. Pavement Width and Obstructions 2. Pavement Surface Quality 3. Kerb Paving Quality 4. Road Permeability 5. Way Finding and Legibility 6. Lighting 7. Personal Security 8. User Conflict 9. Environment Quality China Urban Built Environment Scan Tool (CUBEST) [ 88 ] China ✓ ✓ 1. Residential Density 2. Street Connectivity 3. Accessibility (land-use mix) 4. Sidewalk Quality 5. Bike Lane Quality 6. Aesthetic Europe Built Environment Outdoor Checklist (CBE-OUT) [ 89 ] Finland, Poland, and Spain x x 1. Streetscape 2. Walkways 3. Bikeways 4. Street Crossing / Intersections 5 . Parking Facilities 6. Public Facilities and Features of the Street 7. Land-Use Visible Along the Street / Road 8. Site Decay / Urban Blight 9. Street Activity 3.2 Gaps in Meteorological Audit tools In general, urban design elements to mitigate adverse effects of temperature, precipitation, and seasonal variations, as well as sustainability features to counter future climate change, were not well covered in existing pedestrian environment audits. Most tools included at least one of the items for each category, with 100% including at least one temperature related item, 96% including at least one precipitation item, 84% including at least one seasonal item, and 77% including at least one sustainability item. Overall, sustainability and seasonal categories exhibited the most extensive coverage, with an average inclusion rate across audit tools of 27.16% and 25.31%, respectively (Fig. 2 ). Conversely, temperature and precipitation categories had the lowest coverage, averaging 17.01% and 15.52%, respectively, across audit tools (Fig. 2 ). Among the audit tools assessed, the MAPS-global contained the highest number of items, encompassing 31.42% of the possible 70 meteorological items, while REAT 2.0 had the lowest number of items, covering just 4.29% of the potential items (Fig. 2 , Additional File 2). Pedestrian environment audittools included 2.7% (PEDS) – 27.02% (WWAT) of temperature related items (Fig. 2 ). Certain items had high coverage within toolssuch as “indoor public spaces” (74.07%), “the presence of trees” (92.6%), and the “existence of maintained green spaces” (85.19%), all of which were featured in nearly all audit tools. Items such as shade coverage (40.74%), the presence of natural green spaces (48.15%), road width (48.15%), natural blue spaces (48.15%), grass (48.15%), shrubs (29.63%), building height (29.63%), and sidewalk material (33.33%) received moderate coverage. Certain items were rarely covered, with only MAPS global including them, such as direct cooling, direct heating, and roadway material. Moreover, several temperature-related items were completely absent from all audit tools, including the presence of an arctic entry/vestibule, furniture material, colours of sidewalks, roads, buildings, and furniture, textures of sidewalks, roads, buildings, and furniture, as well as the presence of blue or green roofs or walls and built shade structures. Precipitation was the least covered category by audit tools with an average coverage of 16.29% (Fig. 2 ), most covered by MAPS (38.09%) and least covered by REAT 2.0 (0%) (Fig. 2 ). The most included item was the presence of a buffer zone, which was included in 22 audits. Moderately covered items included sidewalk width (59.26%), covered walkways (29.62%), presence of a transit shelter (33.33%), and building overhangs (22.22%) (Additional File 2). In some audit tools the items puddle presence (11.11%), snow maintenance (11.11%), ice maintenance (11.11%), gutter presence (11.11%), drain presence (11.11%), drainage ditch presence (14.81%), parking ban (7.41%), bike lane width (7.41%), and aligned curb cuts (11.11%) were included. Seasonal items were more frequently covered than temperature or precipitation items with most audit tools (62.96%) including at least 33.33% of items. The tool that included the most seasonal items was the MAPS-Global, which included four seasonal items (summer destinations, seasonal amenities, lighting, and pedestrian scale lighting). The audits that contained the least number of items were the WWAT, SAT, REAT 2.0, and CUBEST (Fig. 2 ). The highest covered item was the presence of lighting, which was included in 81.48% of tools, followed by the inclusion of summer destinations which was included in 48.15% of tools. The remaining items were much less considered. Seasonal amenities (18.52%) and pedestrian scale lighting (14.81%) were considered in some audits, while winter destinations and aesthetics were never included. Most tools (84%) included at least one sustainability item (Additional File 2). MAPS-global included the most features including all items except for “electric vehicle charging stations” and “renewable energy”, both of which were not covered by any tool. Tools with the lowest coverage in this category were REAT 2.0, SWI, SAT, and WWAT, which did not include any of the possible sustainability items. The remaining tools covered at least one to three sustainability items. The most well-covered sustainability items included transit access (74.07%) and bike lanes (66.67%), whereas car or bike share facilities were rarely included (3.7% and 7.41%, respectively). 4. Discussion This scoping review had two primary aims: (1) to investigate whether any built environment audit tools were specifically developed for use during a specific season or weather condition, and (2) to investigate gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating items within built environment audit tools, regardless of whether they were developed for a specific meteorological condition. No peer-reviewed pedestrian environment audit tools developed for use during specific weather conditions or seasons were identified. Moreover, and consistent with previous findings [ 37 ], no existing tool considered weather or season as dimensions within their audit (Additional File 2). Despite the absence of peer-reviewed audit tools, a non-peer-reviewed community-based audit tool called the Snow Mole audit has been developed by the Council on Aging of Ottawa [ 38 ]. It is a volunteer-driven initiative aimed at assessing the safety of Ottawa's sidewalks during winter and includes nine dichotomous items, such as the presence of ice and snow on sidewalks, handrails, and snowbanks [ 38 ]. While this questionnaire represents progress in measuring the accessibility of winter pedestrian environments, it lacks items related to winter destinations (e.g., skating rinks, ski hills), aesthetics (e.g., ice castles), or heating features (e.g., fireplaces, shelters) that may also be essential for encouraging pedestrian use [ 39 ]. Additionally, the checklist only assesses the presence or absence of winter features, rather than their extent. This limitation is significant since both researchers and built environment policy advocates require a detailed, systematic, reliable, and valid audit tool [ 40 ]. 4.2 Inclusion of Features for Meteorological Mitigation Associated with other Domains General built environment audit tools lack the capability to measure the impact of environmental features that could mitigate the negative effects of weather and seasons on pedestrians, with most tools (92.6%) capturing less than 33% of items in any dimension (temperature, precipitation, season, or sustainability). However, certain indicators are well-incorporated within audit tools, such as the presence of trees, lighting, and indoor public spaces. Other indicators, such as winter destinations and building colours, are rarely, if ever, considered (Additional File 2). One explanation for the high coverage of certain meteorological indicators may be their association with other physical activity domains. For instance, indoor public spaces typically fall under the land use dimension, which is associated with increased active transport [ 41 – 43 ]. Similarly, the presence of maintained green spaces falls under the dimension of access to recreational facilities and is associated with lower risk for obesity [ 43 , 44 ]. Lighting is associated with safety dimensions as it is found to reduce crime therefore indirectly increasing walking behavior, albeit with mixed evidence [ 37 , 45 ]. Finally, the presence of a buffer zone typically falls under sidewalk or safety, providing a barrier separating pedestrians from cars [ 43 , 47 ]. An exception is the well-covered item "presence of trees," frequently used to assess the level of shade on sidewalks (thereby reducing temperature). The high coverage of certain meteorological mitigation items that overlap with other audit domains may indicate their inclusion is likely not due to meteorological reasons but, rather, with their association in other domains. Further research could explore assumed meanings by auditors using each tool to ensure valid interpretation of survey items. 4.3 Gaps in Features for Temperature Regulation Features of the built environment can significantly influence the local microclimate, either by raising or lowering temperatures [ 17 ]. Vegetation, for instance, plays a substantial role in reducing microclimate temperatures through evapotranspiration [ 20 , 48 , 49 ]. Building morphology can also reduce microclimate temperatures through the creation of wind tunnel [ 50 ]. Additionally, albedo (a product of material, colour, and texture) or built structures can alter street temperatures [ 17 , 20 , 48 , 51 ]. Objects with lower albedo tend to absorb more solar radiation, while those with high albedo reflect a significant amount of radiation therefore designing streets with high albedo objects can result in lower temperatures compared to streets designed with low albedo structures. Although the presence of green spaces and vegetation is moderately covered in built environment assessments, this focus is likely due to their association with various walkability aspects such as aesthetics. Surprisingly, these assessments seldom include considerations of built features that can directly influence street temperatures. Similarly, features intentionally designed to reduce street temperatures, such as blue and green roofs and walls, which operate by promoting cooling through evaporation, are almost never incorporated in audit tools. Beyond passive mechanisms to alter temperature, an alternate approach is to include features that directly heat or cool pedestrian spaces [ 18 , 52 , 53 ]. Again, these features were rarely considered. This observation provides further evidence that current audit tools are not considering weather impacts in their audits and highlights a noticeable gap: failure to account for features that could directly impact the temperature of street environments. This is an important feature to consider since PA decreases considerably during times of high temperatures [ 7 ]. 4.4 Gaps in features to protect against precipitation To protect pedestrians from the negative impacts of precipitation, pedestrians need protection from overhead rain or snow, and the presence of water, snow, or ice on sidewalks [ 54 , 55 ]. While there is moderate coverage of items in the audit tools that can protect pedestrians from overhead rain or snow, there is limited consideration of the impact of precipitation on sidewalk maintenance or the management of these hazards. Precipitation hazards can be prevented through urban design features, such as runoff management features or, in the case of ice and snow, can be managed through city snow clearing policies [ 56 , 57 ]. For rain (and snowmelt), preventive measures can include features that channel water away from the sidewalk (e.g., gutters, drains, bioswales) or permeable pavements, allowing precipitation to filter through the pavement and into a drainage system below [ 58 ]. The buildup of snow and ice can be prevented with heated sidewalks to melt the snow, or managed with snow removal aided by features such as sidewalk width and aligned curb cuts [ 18 , 59 ]. Along with limited inclusion of prevention/management of hazards, audits also rarely include items assessing presence of precipitation hazards on sidewalks. These limitations together represent a significant gap in audit tools as individuals with reduced mobility can face substantial barriers to PA due to presence of ice, snow, or puddles on sidewalks [ 55 ]. 4.5 Gaps in Winter Features PA is often at its lowest during winter months [ 2 , 60 ]; therefore, it is especially important for cities in cold regions to employ design features to prevent this drop in activity. The winter city movement is aimed at increasing livability in winter cities, primarily through increased use of outdoor public spaces by inhabitants [ 61 ]. Proponents recommend features such as increased lighting, winter-specific aesthetics (e.g., snow art), and destinations to increase use of these spaces [ 61 , 62 ]. Interventions where winter destinations and aesthetic areas were implemented have found increases in pedestrian engagement with the built environment [ 63 ]. The lack of inclusion of winter destinations, aesthetics, and lighting paired with limited inclusion of precipitation and temperature features all point to inability in current audit tools to measure winter pedestrian spaces. 4.6 Recommendations Given the substantial impact of weather and season on PA [ 2 – 6 ], the lack of inclusion of features that could mitigate this in existing audit tools is a substantial gap. This issue may be less critical in regions with generally mild temperatures throughout the year and brief precipitation events. However, in areas with extended winter seasons, extreme heat, or prolonged periods of rain, this becomes a significant issue. Therefore, it is imperative to develop built environment audit tools to measure presence and extent of features that can mitigate weather’s negative impacts on pedestrians. This review specifically identifies the need for a winter-specific audit tool for cold regions, a rain audit tool for rainy regions, and general inclusion of built features that alter microclimates in audits, as areas worldwide experience continued climate change. 4.7 Limitations This study has several limitations. First, the list of meteorological indicators is by no means exhaustive and was compiled by the authors based on a preliminary scan of the literature; therefore, it may be lacking in the inclusion of urban design features that are important in mitigating the impact of weather or season on pedestrians. Second, grey literature was not included in the search, and this review may not provide a complete picture of meteorological mitigating features in audit tools 5. Conclusions This study did not identify any tools designed specifically for use during a specific weather condition or season. Additionally, it assessed gaps in 27 built environment audit tools (not designed for weather/season) for their inclusion of weather mitigating design features. Large gaps were identified in the inclusion of weather mitigating items that could mitigate the negative impacts of temperature (e.g., green features, building materials), precipitation (e.g., building overhangs, gutters), season (e.g., winter hazards, summer destinations) on pedestrians or mitigate climate change (e.g., renewable energy, electric vehicle charging stations). As understanding of weather-mitigating features of the built environment develops, a need exists for more comprehensive audit tools. This review represents a first step in exploring meteorological gaps in current built environment audit tools. Abbreviations PA = Physical Activity SAT = Sidewalk Assessment Tool PEDS = Pedestrian Environmental Data Scan AAT = St. Louis Analytic Audit Tool SPACES = Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan WWAT = Workplace Walkability Audit Tool IMI = Irvine Minnesota Inventory ANC = Active Neighbourhood Checklist SWEAT-R = Revised Senior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool TCOPPE = School Environment Audit Tool MAPS = Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes REPA = The Rural Pedestrian Environmental Audit Instrument WASABE = Wisconsin Assessment of the Social and Built Environment M-SPACES = Madrid Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environment Scan REAT-2.0 = Revised Residential Environment Assessment Tool iCHART = Community Health Assessment in Rural Towns OPECR = Older People's Environments and CVD Rick PIN3 = Pregnancy, Infection, Nutrition Environnemental Audit CANVAS = Computer Assisted Neighbourhood Visual Assessment System PRESH = Pittsburgh Hill/Homewood Research on Neighbourhood Change and Health S-VAT = SPOTLIGHT Virtual Audit Tool Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Availability of data and materials: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]. Competing interests: Dr. Karen Lee occasionally receives invitations to serve as a keynote speaker at conferences, where she is offered an honorarium. Dr. Lee is also author of Fit Cities on which she receives royalties for book sales. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding: This manuscript was supported by funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada awarded to Dr. Karen K. Lee and Dr. John C. Spence at the University of Alberta. Authors' contributions: HD conceptualized the study, created the data extraction form, conducted the analysis, and drafted the manuscript. PS and HD developed the protocol for the study. PS designed and executed the systematic search. PS, FB, AW, SN, and HD conducted the screening of articles and data extraction. HD, PS, FB, KI, and ZA created the list of meteorologically mitigating built environment factors. KKL, JCS, and KW provided critical reviews of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the revision of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Janice Kung for her assistance in designing the search strategy for this review. References Jiang Q, Francis SL, Chapman-Novakofski KM, Wilt M, Carbone ET, Cohen NL. Perceived environmental supports for fruit and vegetable consumption among older adults in the US. Nutr Health. 2021;27:309–19. Tucker P, Gilliland J. The effect of season and weather on physical activity: A systematic review. Public Health. 2007;121:909–22. Turrisi TB, Bittel KM, West AB, Hojjatinia S, Hojjatinia S, Mama SK, et al. Seasons, weather, and device-measured movement behaviors: a scoping review from 2006 to 2020. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18:24. Wendel-Vos W, Droomers M, Kremers S, Brug J, Van Lenthe F. Potential environmental determinants of physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2007;8:425–40. Zheng C, Feng J, Huang W, Wong SH-S. Associations between weather conditions and physical activity and sedentary time in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Place. 2021;69:102546. Carson V, Spence JC. Seasonal variation in physical activity among children and adolescents: a review. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2010;22:81–92. Bernard P, Chevance G, Kingsbury C, Baillot A, Romain A-J, Molinier V, et al. Climate Change, Physical Activity and Sport: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2021;51:1041–59. Lewis LK, Maher C, Belanger K, Tremblay M, Chaput J-P, Olds T. At the Mercy of the Gods: Associations Between Weather, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Time in Children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2016;28:152–63. Böcker L, Dijst M, Prillwitz J. Impact of Everyday Weather on Individual Daily Travel Behaviours in Perspective: A Literature Review. Transp Rev. 2013;33:71–91. Clarke P, Hirsch JA, Melendez R, Winters M, Gould JS, Ashe M, et al. Snow and Rain Modify Neighbourhood Walkability for Older Adults. Can J Aging Rev Can Vieil. 2017;36:159–69. Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Belesova K, Boykoff M, et al. The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. The Lancet. 2019;394:1836–78. Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, Borodulin K, Buman MP, Cardon G, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:1451–62. WHO. Physical activity [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity . Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, Finkelstein EA, Katzmarzyk PT, van Mechelen W, et al. The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet Lond Engl. 2016;388:1311–24. Brown RD. Ameliorating the effects of climate change: Modifying microclimates through design. Landsc Urban Plan. 2011;100:372–4. Hamstead Z, Coseo P. Building Policies, Plans, and Cities to Manage Extreme Weather Events: Perspectives from Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture. In: Smith KH, Ram PK, editors. Transform Glob Health Interdiscip Chall Perspect Strateg. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020 [cited 2023 Oct 13]. p. 261–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32112-3_17 . Rizwan AM, Dennis LYC, Liu C. A review on the generation, determination and mitigation of Urban Heat Island. J Environ Sci. 2008;20:120–8. City of Edmonton. Winter Design Guidelines. Edmonton: City of Edmonton. ; 2016. Available from: https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/initiatives_innovation/winter-design-guidelines . Life Between Umbrellas. Rain Friendly Principles. City of Vancouver. ; 2019. Available from: https://www.lifebetweenumbrellas.ca/rain-friendly-principles . Nasrollahi N, Ghosouri A, Khodakarami J, Taleghani M. Heat-Mitigation Strategies to Improve Pedestrian Thermal Comfort in Urban Environments: A Review. Sustainability. 2020;12:10000. Cain KL, Millstein RA, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Gavand KA, Frank LD, et al. Contribution of streetscape audits to explanation of physical activity in four age groups based on the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). Soc Sci Med. 2014;116:82–92. Stearns JA, Avedzi HM, Yim D, Spence JC, Labbaf F, Lamboglia CG, et al. An Umbrella Review of the Best and Most Up-to-Date Evidence on the Built Environment and Physical Activity in Older Adults ≥ 60 Years. Public Health Rev. 2023;44:1605474. Ball K, Timperio AF, Crawford DA. Understanding environmental influences on nutrition and physical activity behaviors: where should we look and what should we count? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;3:33. Haselwandter EM, Corcoran MP, Folta SC, Hyatt R, Fenton M, Nelson ME. The built environment, physical activity, and aging in the United States: a state of the science review. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23:323–9. Curtis B. Walkability audits in winter cities: planning for a healthier Canada. 2017 [cited 2023 Nov 6]; Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1993/32813 . Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Man Evid Synth. JBI; 2020. Available from: https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4687342/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews . Stephenson M, Riitano D, Wilson S, Leonardi-Bee J, Mabire C, Cooper K et al. Chapter 12: Systematic reviews of measurement properties. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Man Evid Synth. JBI; 2020. Available from: https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4686202/Chapter+12%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+measurement+properties . Foster ED, Deardorff A. Open Science Framework (OSF). J Med Libr Assoc JMLA. 2017;105:203–6. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software [Internet]. Melbourne, Australia. ; 2023. Available from: www.covidence.org. Aghaabbasi M, Moeinaddini M, Zaly Shah M, Asadi-Shekari Z, Arjomand Kermani M. Evaluating the capability of walkability audit tools for assessing sidewalks. Sustain Cities Soc. 2018;37:475–84. Wickham H. ggplot2., Cham. Springer International Publishing; 2016. Available from: http://link.springer.com/ 10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 . R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ; 2021. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/ . Nickelson J, Wang AR, Mitchell QP, Hendricks K, Paschal A. Inventory of the physical environment domains and subdomains measured by neighborhood audit tools: A systematic literature review. J Environ Psychol. 2013;36:179–89. The Council on Aging of Ottawa. 2022 Snow Mole Report: How Safe is Winter Walking in Ottawa? Ottawa, ON; 2022 Aug. Available from: http://coaottawa.ca/2022-snow-mole-report-how-safe-is-winter-walking-in-ottawa/ . McGavock J, Brunton N, Klaprat N, Swanson A, Pancoe D, Manley E, et al. Walking on Water—A Natural Experiment of a Population Health Intervention to Promote Physical Activity after the Winter Holidays. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:3627. Millstein RA, Cain KL, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Geremia C, Frank LD, et al. Development, scoring, and reliability of the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). BMC Public Health. 2013;13:403. Cervero R, Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 1997;2:199–219. Saelens BE, Handy SL. Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:550–66. Nickelson J, Wang AR, Mitchell QP, Hendricks K, Paschal A. Inventory of the physical environment domains and subdomains measured by neighborhood audit tools: A systematic literature review. J Environ Psychol. 2013;36:179–89. Papas MA, Alberg AJ, Ewing R, Helzlsouer KJ, Gary TL, Klassen AC. The Built Environment and Obesity. Epidemiol Rev. 2007;29:129–43. Foster S, Giles-Corti B. The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical activity: An exploration of inconsistent findings. Prev Med. 2008;47:241–51. Foster S, Giles-Corti B. The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical activity: An exploration of inconsistent findings. Prev Med. 2008;47:241–51. Landais LL, Damman OC, Schoonmade LJ, Timmermans DRM, Verhagen EALM, Jelsma JGM. Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17:47. Chatzidimitriou A, Yannas S. Microclimate development in open urban spaces: The influence of form and materials. Energy Build. 2015;108:156–74. Cheung PK, Jim CY. Effects of urban and landscape elements on air temperature in a high-density subtropical city. Build Environ. 2019;164:106362. Norouziasas A, Pilehchi Ha P, Ahmadi M, Rijal HB. Evaluation of urban form influence on pedestrians’ wind comfort. Build Environ. 2022;224:109522. Salata F, Golasi I, Vollaro A, de Vollaro L. How high albedo and traditional buildings’ materials and vegetation affect the quality of urban microclimate. A case study. Energy Build. 2015;99:32–49. Vanos JK, Herdt AJ, Lochbaum MR. Effects of physical activity and shade on the heat balance and thermal perceptions of children in a playground microclimate. Build Environ. 2017;126:119–31. Yuen B, Chor CH. Pedestrian streets in Singapore. Transportation. 1998;25:225–42. Life Between Umbrellas. Rain Friendly Principles [Internet]. City of Vancouver. ; 2019. Available from: https://www.lifebetweenumbrellas.ca/rain-friendly-principles . Ripat J, Sibley KM, Giesbrecht E, Curtis B, Touchette A, Borisoff J, et al. Winter Mobility and Community Participation Among People Who Use Mobility Devices: A Scoping Review. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2020;2:100018. Ripat J, Sibley KM, Giesbrecht E, Curtis B, Touchette A, Borisoff J, et al. Winter Mobility and Community Participation Among People Who Use Mobility Devices: A Scoping Review. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2020;2:100018. Xu J, Dai J, Wu X, Wu S, Zhang Y, Wang F et al. Urban rainwater utilization: A review of management modes and harvesting systems. Front Environ Sci. 2023;11. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1025665 . Xu J, Dai J, Wu X, Wu S, Zhang Y, Wang F et al. Urban rainwater utilization: A review of management modes and harvesting systems. Front Environ Sci. 2023;11. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1025665 . Antoshkina A, Shmeleva IA. Smart Solutions for Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Arctic Cities. Digit Transform Glob Soc. Cham: Springer; 2020. pp. 301–15. Carlson SA, Whitfield GP, Peterson EL, Ussery EN, Watson KB, Berrigan D, et al. Geographic and Urban–Rural Differences in Walking for Leisure and Transportation. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55:887–95. Stout M, Collins D, Stadler SL, Soans R, Sanborn E, Summers RJ. Celebrated, not just endured. Rethinking Winter Cities Geogr Compass. 2018;12:e12379. Pressman NEP. Sustainable winter cities: Future directions for planning, policy and design. Atmos Environ. 1996;30:521–9. Roemmich JN, Johnson L. Seasonal Alterations in Park Visitation, Amenity Use, and Physical Activity — Grand Forks, North Dakota, 2012–2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E155. Williams JE, Evans M, Kirtland KA, Cavnar MM, Sharpe PA, Neet MJ, et al. Development and use of a tool for assessing sidewalk maintenance as an environmental support of physical activity. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6:81–8. Clifton KJ, Livi Smith AD, Rodriguez D. The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landsc Urban Plan. 2007;80:95–110. Brownson R, Hoehner C, Brennan L, Cook R, Elliott M, Mcmullen K. Reliability of Two Instruments for Auditing the Environment for Physical Activity. J Phys Act Health. 2004;1. Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1693–703. Dannenberg AL, Cramer TW, Gibson CJ. Assessing the walkability of the workplace: a new audit tool. Am J Health Promot AJHP. 2005;20:39–44. Boarnet MG, Day K, Alfonzo M, Forsyth A, Oakes M. The Irvine–Minnesota Inventory to Measure Built Environments: Reliability Tests. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:153–159e43. Hoehner CM, Ivy A, Ramirez LKB, Handy S, Brownson RC. Active neighborhood checklist: a user-friendly and reliable tool for assessing activity friendliness. Am J Health Promot AJHP. 2007;21:534–7. Michael YL, Keast EM, Chaudhury H, Day K, Mahmood A, Sarte AFI. Revising the senior walking environmental assessment tool. Prev Med. 2009;48:247–9. Lee C, Kim HJ, Dowdy DM, Hoelscher DM, Ory MG. TCOPPE school environmental audit tool: assessing safety and walkability of school environments. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10:949–60. Millstein RA, Cain KL, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Geremia C, Frank LD, et al. Development, scoring, and reliability of the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). BMC Public Health. 2013;13:403. Scanlin K, Haardoerfer R, Kegler MC, Glanz K. Development of a pedestrian audit tool to assess rural neighborhood walkability. J Phys Act Health. 2014;11:1085–96. Malecki KC, Engelman CD, Peppard PE, Nieto FJ, Grabow ML, Bernardinello M, et al. The Wisconsin Assessment of the Social and Built Environment (WASABE): a multi-dimensional objective audit instrument for examining neighborhood effects on health. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1165. Gullón P, Badland HM, Alfayate S, Bilal U, Escobar F, Cebrecos A, et al. Assessing Walking and Cycling Environments in the Streets of Madrid: Comparing On-Field and Virtual Audits. J Urban Health Bull N Y Acad Med. 2015;92:923–39. Vanwolleghem G, Ghekiere A, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, D’Haese S, Geremia CM, et al. Using an audit tool (MAPS Global) to assess the characteristics of the physical environment related to walking for transport in youth: reliability of Belgian data. Int J Health Geogr. 2016;15:41. Poortinga W, Calve T, Jones N, Lannon S, Rees T, Rodgers SE, et al. Neighborhood Quality and Attachment: Validation of the Revised Residential Environment Assessment Tool. Environ Behav. 2017;49:255–82. Seguin RA, Lo BK, Sriram U, Connor LM, Totta A. Development and testing of a community audit tool to assess rural built environments: Inventories for Community Health Assessment in Rural Towns. Prev Med Rep. 2017;7:169. Pliakas T, Hawkesworth S, Silverwood RJ, Nanchahal K, Grundy C, Armstrong B, et al. Optimising measurement of health-related characteristics of the built environment: Comparing data collected by foot-based street audits, virtual street audits and routine secondary data sources. Health Place. 2017;43:75–84. Porter AK, Wen F, Herring AH, Rodríguez DA, Messer LC, Laraia BA, et al. Reliability and One-Year Stability of the PIN3 Neighborhood Environmental Audit in Urban and Rural Neighborhoods. J Urban Health Bull N Y Acad Med. 2018;95:431–9. Mooney SJ, Wheeler-Martin K, Fiedler LM, LaBelle CM, Lampe T, Ratanatharathorn A, et al. Development and Validation of a Google Street View Pedestrian Safety Audit Tool. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2020;31:301–9. Ghosh-Dastidar M, Hunter GP, Sloan JC, Collins RL, Richardson AS, Troxel W, et al. An audit tool for longitudinal assessment of the health-related characteristics of urban neighborhoods: implementation methods and reliability results. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1519. Bethlehem JR, Mackenbach JD, Ben-Rebah M, Compernolle S, Glonti K, Bárdos H, et al. The SPOTLIGHT virtual audit tool: a valid and reliable tool to assess obesogenic characteristics of the built environment. Int J Health Geogr. 2014;13:52. Andersen OK, O’Halloran SA, Kolle E, Lien N, Lakerveld J, Arah OA, et al. Adapting the SPOTLIGHT Virtual Audit Tool to assess food and activity environments relevant for adolescents: a validity and reliability study. Int J Health Geogr. 2021;20:4. Lee S, Lee C, Nam JW, Abbey-Lambertz M, Mendoza JA. School walkability index: Application of environmental audit tool and GIS. J Transp Health. 2020;18:100880. Griew P, Hillsdon M, Foster C, Coombes E, Jones A, Wilkinson P. Developing and testing a street audit tool using Google Street View to measure environmental supportiveness for physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:103. Su M, Du Y, Liu Q, Ren Y, Kawachi I, Lv J, et al. Objective assessment of urban built environment related to physical activity — development, reliability and validity of the China Urban Built Environment Scan Tool (CUBEST). BMC Public Health. 2014;14:109. Quintas R, Raggi A, Bucciarelli P, Franco MG, Andreotti A, Caballero FF, et al. The COURAGE Built Environment Outdoor Checklist: an objective built environment instrument to investigate the impact of the environment on health and disability. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2014;21:204–14. Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. Dr. Karen Lee occasionally receives invitations to serve as a keynote speaker at conferences, where she is offered an honorarium. Dr. Lee is also author of Fit Cities on which she receives royalties for book sales Supplementary Files AdditionalFile1.docx AdditionalFile2.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Jul, 2024 Read the published version in BMC Public Health → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 10 Jun, 2024 Reviews received at journal 07 Jun, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 May, 2024 Reviews received at journal 20 May, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 May, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 15 May, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 03 May, 2024 Editor invited by journal 05 Jan, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 05 Jan, 2024 First submitted to journal 21 Dec, 2023 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3789018","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":265429986,"identity":"b167bc2c-5783-41b0-bfdc-f2fa26716751","order_by":0,"name":"Hayley Florence Drapeau","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alberta","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hayley","middleName":"Florence","lastName":"Drapeau","suffix":""},{"id":265429987,"identity":"d8512319-f2cd-4211-aefe-3ca50e5c914e","order_by":1,"name":"Pratima Singh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alberta","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pratima","middleName":"","lastName":"Singh","suffix":""},{"id":265429988,"identity":"08a58ba3-a1b2-4cc0-8ab9-b6e2bf5a6532","order_by":2,"name":"Faina Benyaminov","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alberta","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Faina","middleName":"","lastName":"Benyaminov","suffix":""},{"id":265429989,"identity":"23f3bea3-7604-461c-bf9b-d953a5e9acbc","order_by":3,"name":"Kelsey Wright","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alberta","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kelsey","middleName":"","lastName":"Wright","suffix":""},{"id":265429990,"identity":"60d24d17-a8bc-4fbd-a81b-ef15511fd2dd","order_by":4,"name":"John C Spence","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alberta","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"John","middleName":"C","lastName":"Spence","suffix":""},{"id":265429991,"identity":"e3c6aaf2-18bc-419e-85fc-20be6e8a5071","order_by":5,"name":"Saba Nuzhat","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alberta","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Saba","middleName":"","lastName":"Nuzhat","suffix":""},{"id":265429992,"identity":"7c73fb7d-51c6-415c-b908-ed34b0ee601f","order_by":6,"name":"Amy Walsh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alberta","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amy","middleName":"","lastName":"Walsh","suffix":""},{"id":265429993,"identity":"20e1fa24-29c1-47e7-9d64-cbe9d923a969","order_by":7,"name":"Kausarul Islam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alberta","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kausarul","middleName":"","lastName":"Islam","suffix":""},{"id":265429994,"identity":"e07db596-d4e0-47de-b005-e10b6a077508","order_by":8,"name":"Zahra Azarm","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alberta","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zahra","middleName":"","lastName":"Azarm","suffix":""},{"id":265429995,"identity":"6730f6a6-4f95-4534-8be6-cc8531494ffa","order_by":9,"name":"Karen K Lee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alberta","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Karen","middleName":"K","lastName":"Lee","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-12-21 22:29:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3789018/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3789018/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19441-6","type":"published","date":"2024-07-27T16:16:19+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":49329202,"identity":"8dfc3ea5-8725-493a-b8c5-f0f3fe87ffa5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 18:25:37","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":339501,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3789018/v1/60085132fc12d6cdf8dbef52.jpg"},{"id":49329204,"identity":"b4a741e9-1ae4-4389-8453-4ec923a1665a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 18:25:37","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":392280,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3789018/v1/a7af33c33cab99b77687fea6.jpg"},{"id":61596533,"identity":"a87b062e-5a58-489b-a244-b35ee91b37ec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-01 17:28:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1415361,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3789018/v1/e17df967-4825-460a-9f2e-9ca17d3e03e3.pdf"},{"id":49329786,"identity":"e0fc8ff6-3724-41eb-acef-6de14b34cb54","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 18:41:37","extension":"docx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":15640,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3789018/v1/e2266e269dbe59bd8b67e299.docx"},{"id":49329492,"identity":"46b96ab8-546b-443f-9c77-b61cd0ec5352","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 18:33:37","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":169203,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3789018/v1/1648a5e9a2ba464032e2e316.docx"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. Dr. Karen Lee occasionally receives invitations to serve as a keynote speaker at conferences, where she is offered an honorarium. Dr. Lee is also author of Fit Cities on which she receives royalties for book sales","formattedTitle":"Meteorological gaps in audits of pedestrian environments: a scoping review","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eIt is well established that environmental conditions, including weather and seasonality, affect physical activity (PA) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3 CR4 CR5\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Temperature and PA have a non-linear relationship, with PA increasing with temperature until approximately 25\u0026deg;C- 29\u0026deg;C then decreasing again, with dramatic PA decreases above 40\u0026deg;C [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, prolonged precipitation (e.g., snow, rain) can also reduce both leisure PA and active transport [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. In older adults, snow and ice can be a large barrier to walking/wheeling leading to large decreases in PA during winter [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. As global temperatures increase and severe weather conditions (e.g., precipitation events, drought) become more frequent [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e], the negative impacts of environment on PA could become exacerbated [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. This is of concern for public health since ~\u0026thinsp;1/3 of the global population do not meet PA guidelines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], contributing to an increased likelihood of death [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], and \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e67.5\u0026nbsp;billion in healthcare costs and productivity losses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThough it is not possible to control the weather, and climate change impacts are already underway, outdoor areas can be modified to protect against weather conditions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Features of urban design have also been found to worsen extreme weather events. For example, the heat island effect is a phenomenon where urban areas become significantly hotter than air temperatures due to insufficient vegetation and construction materials that reflect the heat [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. To combat these issues and prepare for future climate changes, urban design and planning organizations have proposed and implemented features to modify local micro-climates and create urban spaces that might be cooler, hotter, or drier than surrounding areas [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR18 CR19\" citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWalking, cycling, and wheeling are among the most popular forms of PA [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], and heavily rely on supportive pedestrian streetscapes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. As weather and climate conditions change, and to mitigate further climate changes through promotion of active transportation modes like walking, it is increasingly important for urban design and planning to consider impact of weather on pedestrians. To understand the role of urban design features in promoting outdoor PA under various meteorological conditions and to address them adequately in different jurisdictions, it is necessary to measure the presence/extent/quality of these features in pedestrian environments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the extent to which measures of the built and/or pedestrian environment address aspects of meteorological conditions is unknown. Recently, a few popular built environment audit tools [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] were scrutinized for their inability to adequately measure winter features of pedestrian built environments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Thus, there is an urgent need for consistent and comprehensive assessment tools for the capacity of pedestrian spaces to mitigate impacts of weather and seasonality on pedestrians and their PA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper presents a comprehensive scoping review to identify audit tools designed for use during specific seasons or weather conditions. Additionally, those tools not specifically designed for season or weather condition, were assessed for their inclusion of built environment features that might mitigate impacts of weather and seasons on pedestrians (e.g., vegetation, building overhangs, winter aesthetics, transit availability).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review was conducted following the framework developed by Arksey and O\u0026rsquo;Malley [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidelines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], and the JBI systematic review of measurement properties [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. The protocol can be found in Open Science Framework (OSF) and was publicly released through registration with the OSF platform (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/xytwv\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/xytwv\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. To ensure the quality of this review, we referred to the methodological guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Search strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSearch terms and strategy were developed in consultation with a research librarian and in accordance with the PCC (population, concept, context) criteria [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Population was determined to be any user of a pedestrian environment and the context was open. Initially, the concept was tools specifically designed for or including weather/season-related built environment features. An initial search was conducted with terms from the concepts, audit tools, pedestrian environment, and meteorological factors. However, no such tools were found in peer-reviewed literature. Thus, the research question was changed to \u0026ldquo;what are the gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating built environment features in audit tools, regardless of if they were developed for a specific meteorological condition\u0026rdquo; from \u0026ldquo;investigate gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating built environment in audit tools which consider environmental conditions in their tool\u0026rdquo;. The context was updated to be any audit tools developed to investigate impacts of the built environment on pedestrian locomotion, and search terms associated with the concept \u0026ldquo;meteorological factors\u0026rdquo; were removed from the search. Eligible studies needed to be a methodological paper discussing development, reliability, or validity of a built environment audit tool for pedestrian environments and published in English. Excluded studies did not include built environment elements, were audit tools that were abbreviated versions of prior tools or were of unavailable audit tools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA literature search was conducted in CINAHL, Medline, and Web of Science. Additional file 1 contains the search strings. Retrieved studies were gathered in RAYYAN online platform to eliminate duplicate and irrelevant references [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. After this initial process, the remaining publications were transferred to COVIDENCE web-based platform for study screening and data extraction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Study selection and data extraction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior to screening, pilot testing was conducted to ensure high inter-rater agreement between reviewers. Title and abstract pilot screening was conducted by the first reviewer (PS) and a random second reviewer (either AW, FB, or SN). A random sample of 20 studies were screened and PS obtained high agreement with FB (kappa\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1) and SN (kappa\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.9), and low agreement with AW (kappa\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3). Discrepancies between AW and PS were discussed with the reviewing team and with the third reviewer (HD) until consensus was reached. After pilot testing, two random reviewers (either PS, AW, FB, SN) subsequently assessed reference titles and abstracts. Disagreements were resolved with the assistance of an independent third reviewer (HD). Relevant articles were selected for full text screening. At this stage, each full text was evaluated based on the exclusion criteria by two random reviewers (either PS, FB or SN) with conflicts resolved by HD. Finally, included studies were hand searched by PS and any additional studies that met inclusion criteria were included for data extraction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the selected studies, data were extracted for psychometric properties of audit tools, including number of built environment items, and reliability and validity testing results. Audit tool characteristics were also extracted including country of development, tool dimensions, and whether the tool was developed specifically for a certain season or weather condition. Next, items included in audit tools were extracted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the existence of weather/seasonal limitations in audit tools, a list of built environment items that could either mitigate negative effects of weather on pedestrians or promote pedestrian locomotion was compiled after an extensive literature search conducted by the authors. The items were compiled into the following dimensions: temperature (e.g., building material, vegetation), precipitation (e.g., gutters, building overhangs), season (e.g., winter destinations, winter aesthetics), and sustainability (e.g., transit availability).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Synthesis of findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo compare differences in the inclusion of meteorological items across the included audit tools, capability appraisals for each meteorological dimension were calculated [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] then visualized with a heatmap created through ggplot2 in R (version 4.0.1) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe initial search returned 2823 documents. After removing duplicates, 2575 documents remained for title and abstract screening; of these, 75 were reviewed in full text. Ultimately, 19 studies from this primary search were included. Citation searches of included studies identified 8 additional documents, which resulted in a total of 27 included studies spanning from 2002 to 2020 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Though many studies conducted reliability testing on their tool, few (29.63%) discussed the validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe length of the items included in the audit tools varied from the smallest number of items included in the sidewalk assessment tool (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5 items) to large audits that contain up to 191 items (iCHART). There was not a large variation in country of development with most tools (59.26%) being developed in the United States (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Within the United States, tools were developed across many different regions with varying weather-related concerns. No tool was designed specifically for a certain meteorological condition or season. Furthermore, no audit tool considered meteorological factors specifically to be a dimension.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneral characteristics of included audit tools identified from selected studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAudit Tool\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability Testing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValidity Testing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncluded Dimensions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSidewalk Assessment Tool (SAT) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Pedestrian Environmental Data Scan (PEDS) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Environment (built) 2. Pedestrian Facility 3. Road attributes 4. Walking/cycling environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSt. Louis Analytic Audit Tool (AAT) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Land use 2. Transportation 3. Facilities 4. Aesthetics 5. Signage 6. Social Environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Walking 2. Streets 3. Safety 4. Permeability 5. Personal Safety 6. Traffic Safety 7. Streetscapes 8. Views 9. Facilities 10. Subjective Assessment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkplace Walkability Audit Tool (WWAT) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIrvine Minnesota Inventory Audit Tool (IMI) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Accessibility 2. Pleasurably 3. Perceived Safety from Traffic 4. Perceived Safety from Crime\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eActive Neighbourhood Checklist (ANC) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Land Use Characteristics 2. Sidewalks 3. Street Characteristics 4. Quality of the Environment for Pedestrians\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSenior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool (SWEAT-R) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Functionality 2. Aesthetics 3. Safety 4. Destinations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSchool Environment Audit Tool (TCOPPE) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Land Uses 2. Street and Traffic Characteristics 3. Signage 4. Amenities 5. Social Disorder\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicroscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Route (Land Use, Streetscape, Aesthetics and Social) 2. Segment 3. Crossing 4. Cul-de-Sac\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Rural Pedestrian Environmental Audit Instrument (REPA) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Destinations 2. Street Characteristics 3. Aesthetics 4. Social/Dynamic Environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWisconsin Assessment of the Social and Built Environment (WASABE) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Neighbourhood\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics 2. Transportation Environment 3. Destinations 4. Social Environment 5. Street Connectivity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMadrid Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environment Scan (M-SPACES) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Function 2. Safety 3. Aesthetics 4. Destinations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMAPS global [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelgium\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Route (Land Use, Streetscape, Aesthetics and Social) 2. Segment 3. Crossing 4. Cul-de-Sac\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRevised Residential Environment Assessment Tool (REAT-2.0) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Neighbourhood Condition 2. Natural Surveillance 3. Natural Elements 4. Urban Form\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity Health Assessment in Rural Towns (iCHART) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e79\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Town Infrastructure 2. Resources\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Residences\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOlder People's Environments and CVD Rick (OPECR) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnited Kingdom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Transport 2. Green Space 3. Advertisements 4. built environment 5. Aesthetics 6. Land Use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePregnancy, Infection, Nutrition Environmental Audit (PIN3) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Residential Land Use 2. Non-Residential Land Use 3. Public Space 4. Aesthics 5. Mobility Amenities, Transit and Road Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComputer Assisted Neighbourhood Visual Assessment System (CANVAS) Audit Tool [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Building 2. Vegetation and Parks 3. Litter 4. Street conditions 5. Sidewalk Conditions 6. Public Transit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePittsburgh Hill/Homewood Research on Neighbourhood Change and Health (PHRESH) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Land Use 2. Environment 3. Physical Activity\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFacility 4. Walking/Cycling Environment 5. Safety Signs 6. Amenities and litter 7. Gathering Places 8. Social Disorder 9. Noise Pollution 10. Physical Disorder\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSPOTLIGHT Virtual Audit Tool (S-VAT) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNetherlands\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Walking Related Items 2. Cycling Related Items 3. Public Transport Items 4. Aesthetics Items 5. Land-Use Mix Items 6. Grocery Store Items 7. Food Outlets 8. Recreational Facility Items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModified S-VAT [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e85\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNorway\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Walking Related Items 2. Cycling Related Items 3. Public Transport Items 4. Aesthetics Items 5. Land-Use Mix Items 6. Grocery Store Items 7. Food Outlets 8. Recreational Facility Items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSchool Walkability Index (SWI) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e86\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Land Use Mix 2. Street Characteristics 3. Neighbourhood Perception\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFASTVIEW [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e87\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Pavement Width and Obstructions 2. Pavement Surface Quality 3. Kerb Paving Quality 4. Road Permeability 5. Way Finding and Legibility 6. Lighting 7. Personal Security 8. User Conflict 9. Environment Quality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChina Urban Built Environment Scan Tool (CUBEST) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e88\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Residential Density 2. Street Connectivity 3. Accessibility (land-use mix) 4. Sidewalk Quality 5. Bike Lane Quality 6. Aesthetic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEurope Built Environment Outdoor Checklist (CBE-OUT) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e89\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinland, Poland, and Spain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Streetscape 2. Walkways 3. Bikeways 4. Street Crossing / Intersections \u003cspan refid=\"Sec15\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e. Parking Facilities 6. Public Facilities and Features of the Street 7. Land-Use Visible Along the Street / Road 8. Site Decay / Urban Blight 9. Street Activity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Gaps in Meteorological Audit tools\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn general, urban design elements to mitigate adverse effects of temperature, precipitation, and seasonal variations, as well as sustainability features to counter future climate change, were not well covered in existing pedestrian environment audits. Most tools included at least one of the items for each category, with 100% including at least one temperature related item, 96% including at least one precipitation item, 84% including at least one seasonal item, and 77% including at least one sustainability item. Overall, sustainability and seasonal categories exhibited the most extensive coverage, with an average inclusion rate across audit tools of 27.16% and 25.31%, respectively (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, temperature and precipitation categories had the lowest coverage, averaging 17.01% and 15.52%, respectively, across audit tools (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Among the audit tools assessed, the MAPS-global contained the highest number of items, encompassing 31.42% of the possible 70 meteorological items, while REAT 2.0 had the lowest number of items, covering just 4.29% of the potential items (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, Additional File 2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePedestrian environment audittools included 2.7% (PEDS) \u0026ndash; 27.02% (WWAT) of temperature related items (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Certain items had high coverage within toolssuch as \u0026ldquo;indoor public spaces\u0026rdquo; (74.07%), \u0026ldquo;the presence of trees\u0026rdquo; (92.6%), and the \u0026ldquo;existence of maintained green spaces\u0026rdquo; (85.19%), all of which were featured in nearly all audit tools. Items such as shade coverage (40.74%), the presence of natural green spaces (48.15%), road width (48.15%), natural blue spaces (48.15%), grass (48.15%), shrubs (29.63%), building height (29.63%), and sidewalk material (33.33%) received moderate coverage. Certain items were rarely covered, with only MAPS global including them, such as direct cooling, direct heating, and roadway material. Moreover, several temperature-related items were completely absent from all audit tools, including the presence of an arctic entry/vestibule, furniture material, colours of sidewalks, roads, buildings, and furniture, textures of sidewalks, roads, buildings, and furniture, as well as the presence of blue or green roofs or walls and built shade structures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrecipitation was the least covered category by audit tools with an average coverage of 16.29% (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), most covered by MAPS (38.09%) and least covered by REAT 2.0 (0%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The most included item was the presence of a buffer zone, which was included in 22 audits. Moderately covered items included sidewalk width (59.26%), covered walkways (29.62%), presence of a transit shelter (33.33%), and building overhangs (22.22%) (Additional File 2). In some audit tools the items puddle presence (11.11%), snow maintenance (11.11%), ice maintenance (11.11%), gutter presence (11.11%), drain presence (11.11%), drainage ditch presence (14.81%), parking ban (7.41%), bike lane width (7.41%), and aligned curb cuts (11.11%) were included.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeasonal items were more frequently covered than temperature or precipitation items with most audit tools (62.96%) including at least 33.33% of items. The tool that included the most seasonal items was the MAPS-Global, which included four seasonal items (summer destinations, seasonal amenities, lighting, and pedestrian scale lighting). The audits that contained the least number of items were the WWAT, SAT, REAT 2.0, and CUBEST (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The highest covered item was the presence of lighting, which was included in 81.48% of tools, followed by the inclusion of summer destinations which was included in 48.15% of tools. The remaining items were much less considered. Seasonal amenities (18.52%) and pedestrian scale lighting (14.81%) were considered in some audits, while winter destinations and aesthetics were never included.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost tools (84%) included at least one sustainability item (Additional File 2). MAPS-global included the most features including all items except for \u0026ldquo;electric vehicle charging stations\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;renewable energy\u0026rdquo;, both of which were not covered by any tool. Tools with the lowest coverage in this category were REAT 2.0, SWI, SAT, and WWAT, which did not include any of the possible sustainability items. The remaining tools covered at least one to three sustainability items. The most well-covered sustainability items included transit access (74.07%) and bike lanes (66.67%), whereas car or bike share facilities were rarely included (3.7% and 7.41%, respectively).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review had two primary aims: (1) to investigate whether any built environment audit tools were specifically developed for use during a specific season or weather condition, and (2) to investigate gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating items within built environment audit tools, regardless of whether they were developed for a specific meteorological condition. No peer-reviewed pedestrian environment audit tools developed for use during specific weather conditions or seasons were identified. Moreover, and consistent with previous findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e], no existing tool considered weather or season as dimensions within their audit (Additional File 2). Despite the absence of peer-reviewed audit tools, a non-peer-reviewed community-based audit tool called the Snow Mole audit has been developed by the Council on Aging of Ottawa [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. It is a volunteer-driven initiative aimed at assessing the safety of Ottawa's sidewalks during winter and includes nine dichotomous items, such as the presence of ice and snow on sidewalks, handrails, and snowbanks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. While this questionnaire represents progress in measuring the accessibility of winter pedestrian environments, it lacks items related to winter destinations (e.g., skating rinks, ski hills), aesthetics (e.g., ice castles), or heating features (e.g., fireplaces, shelters) that may also be essential for encouraging pedestrian use [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, the checklist only assesses the presence or absence of winter features, rather than their extent. This limitation is significant since both researchers and built environment policy advocates require a detailed, systematic, reliable, and valid audit tool [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Inclusion of Features for Meteorological Mitigation Associated with other Domains\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneral built environment audit tools lack the capability to measure the impact of environmental features that could mitigate the negative effects of weather and seasons on pedestrians, with most tools (92.6%) capturing less than 33% of items in any dimension (temperature, precipitation, season, or sustainability). However, certain indicators are well-incorporated within audit tools, such as the presence of trees, lighting, and indoor public spaces. Other indicators, such as winter destinations and building colours, are rarely, if ever, considered (Additional File 2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne explanation for the high coverage of certain meteorological indicators may be their association with other physical activity domains. For instance, indoor public spaces typically fall under the land use dimension, which is associated with increased active transport [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR42\" citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, the presence of maintained green spaces falls under the dimension of access to recreational facilities and is associated with lower risk for obesity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Lighting is associated with safety dimensions as it is found to reduce crime therefore indirectly increasing walking behavior, albeit with mixed evidence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. Finally, the presence of a buffer zone typically falls under sidewalk or safety, providing a barrier separating pedestrians from cars [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. An exception is the well-covered item \"presence of trees,\" frequently used to assess the level of shade on sidewalks (thereby reducing temperature). The high coverage of certain meteorological mitigation items that overlap with other audit domains may indicate their inclusion is likely not due to meteorological reasons but, rather, with their association in other domains. Further research could explore assumed meanings by auditors using each tool to ensure valid interpretation of survey items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Gaps in Features for Temperature Regulation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeatures of the built environment can significantly influence the local microclimate, either by raising or lowering temperatures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Vegetation, for instance, plays a substantial role in reducing microclimate temperatures through evapotranspiration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. Building morphology can also reduce microclimate temperatures through the creation of wind tunnel [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, albedo (a product of material, colour, and texture) or built structures can alter street temperatures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. Objects with lower albedo tend to absorb more solar radiation, while those with high albedo reflect a significant amount of radiation therefore designing streets with high albedo objects can result in lower temperatures compared to streets designed with low albedo structures. Although the presence of green spaces and vegetation is moderately covered in built environment assessments, this focus is likely due to their association with various walkability aspects such as aesthetics. Surprisingly, these assessments seldom include considerations of built features that can directly influence street temperatures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, features intentionally designed to reduce street temperatures, such as blue and green roofs and walls, which operate by promoting cooling through evaporation, are almost never incorporated in audit tools. Beyond passive mechanisms to alter temperature, an alternate approach is to include features that directly heat or cool pedestrian spaces [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. Again, these features were rarely considered. This observation provides further evidence that current audit tools are not considering weather impacts in their audits and highlights a noticeable gap: failure to account for features that could directly impact the temperature of street environments. This is an important feature to consider since PA decreases considerably during times of high temperatures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Gaps in features to protect against precipitation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo protect pedestrians from the negative impacts of precipitation, pedestrians need protection from overhead rain or snow, and the presence of water, snow, or ice on sidewalks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. While there is moderate coverage of items in the audit tools that can protect pedestrians from overhead rain or snow, there is limited consideration of the impact of precipitation on sidewalk maintenance or the management of these hazards. Precipitation hazards can be prevented through urban design features, such as runoff management features or, in the case of ice and snow, can be managed through city snow clearing policies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e]. For rain (and snowmelt), preventive measures can include features that channel water away from the sidewalk (e.g., gutters, drains, bioswales) or permeable pavements, allowing precipitation to filter through the pavement and into a drainage system below [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. The buildup of snow and ice can be prevented with heated sidewalks to melt the snow, or managed with snow removal aided by features such as sidewalk width and aligned curb cuts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]. Along with limited inclusion of prevention/management of hazards, audits also rarely include items assessing presence of precipitation hazards on sidewalks. These limitations together represent a significant gap in audit tools as individuals with reduced mobility can face substantial barriers to PA due to presence of ice, snow, or puddles on sidewalks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5 Gaps in Winter Features\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePA is often at its lowest during winter months [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e]; therefore, it is especially important for cities in cold regions to employ design features to prevent this drop in activity. The winter city movement is aimed at increasing livability in winter cities, primarily through increased use of outdoor public spaces by inhabitants [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e]. Proponents recommend features such as increased lighting, winter-specific aesthetics (e.g., snow art), and destinations to increase use of these spaces [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. Interventions where winter destinations and aesthetic areas were implemented have found increases in pedestrian engagement with the built environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e]. The lack of inclusion of winter destinations, aesthetics, and lighting paired with limited inclusion of precipitation and temperature features all point to inability in current audit tools to measure winter pedestrian spaces.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.6 Recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the substantial impact of weather and season on PA [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR3 CR4 CR5\" citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], the lack of inclusion of features that could mitigate this in existing audit tools is a substantial gap. This issue may be less critical in regions with generally mild temperatures throughout the year and brief precipitation events. However, in areas with extended winter seasons, extreme heat, or prolonged periods of rain, this becomes a significant issue. Therefore, it is imperative to develop built environment audit tools to measure presence and extent of features that can mitigate weather\u0026rsquo;s negative impacts on pedestrians. This review specifically identifies the need for a winter-specific audit tool for cold regions, a rain audit tool for rainy regions, and general inclusion of built features that alter microclimates in audits, as areas worldwide experience continued climate change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.7 Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations. First, the list of meteorological indicators is by no means exhaustive and was compiled by the authors based on a preliminary scan of the literature; therefore, it may be lacking in the inclusion of urban design features that are important in mitigating the impact of weather or season on pedestrians. Second, grey literature was not included in the search, and this review may not provide a complete picture of meteorological mitigating features in audit tools\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study did not identify any tools designed specifically for use during a specific weather condition or season. Additionally, it assessed gaps in 27 built environment audit tools (not designed for weather/season) for their inclusion of weather mitigating design features. Large gaps were identified in the inclusion of weather mitigating items that could mitigate the negative impacts of temperature (e.g., green features, building materials), precipitation (e.g., building overhangs, gutters), season (e.g., winter hazards, summer destinations) on pedestrians or mitigate climate change (e.g., renewable energy, electric vehicle charging stations). As understanding of weather-mitigating features of the built environment develops, a need exists for more comprehensive audit tools. This review represents a first step in exploring meteorological gaps in current built environment audit tools.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003ePA = Physical Activity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSAT = Sidewalk Assessment Tool\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePEDS = Pedestrian Environmental Data Scan\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAAT = St. Louis Analytic Audit Tool\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSPACES =\u0026nbsp;Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWWAT = Workplace Walkability Audit Tool\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIMI = Irvine Minnesota Inventory\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eANC = Active Neighbourhood Checklist\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSWEAT-R = Revised Senior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTCOPPE = School Environment Audit Tool\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMAPS = Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eREPA = The Rural Pedestrian Environmental Audit Instrument\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWASABE = Wisconsin Assessment of the Social and Built Environment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eM-SPACES = Madrid Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environment Scan\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eREAT-2.0 = Revised Residential Environment Assessment Tool\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eiCHART = Community Health Assessment in Rural Towns\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOPECR =\u0026nbsp;Older People\u0026apos;s Environments and CVD Rick\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePIN3 =\u0026nbsp;Pregnancy, Infection, Nutrition Environnemental Audit\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCANVAS =\u0026nbsp;Computer Assisted Neighbourhood Visual Assessment System\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePRESH = Pittsburgh Hill/Homewood Research on Neighbourhood Change and Health\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eS-VAT = SPOTLIGHT Virtual Audit Tool\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll data generated or analyzed during this study are\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eincluded in this published article [and its supplementary information files].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDr. Karen Lee occasionally receives invitations to serve as a keynote speaker at conferences, where she is offered an honorarium. \u0026nbsp;Dr. Lee is also author of \u003cem\u003eFit Cities\u003c/em\u003e on which she receives royalties for book sales.\u0026nbsp;The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis manuscript was supported by funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada awarded to Dr. Karen K. Lee and Dr. John C. Spence at the University of Alberta.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eHD conceptualized the study, created the data extraction form, conducted the analysis, and drafted the manuscript. PS and HD developed the protocol for the study. PS designed and executed the systematic search. PS, FB, AW, SN, and HD conducted the screening of articles and data extraction. HD, PS, FB, KI, and ZA created the list of meteorologically mitigating built environment factors. KKL, JCS, and KW provided critical reviews of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the revision of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eWe would like to thank Janice Kung for her assistance in designing the search strategy for this review.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang Q, Francis SL, Chapman-Novakofski KM, Wilt M, Carbone ET, Cohen NL. Perceived environmental supports for fruit and vegetable consumption among older adults in the US. Nutr Health. 2021;27:309\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTucker P, Gilliland J. The effect of season and weather on physical activity: A systematic review. Public Health. 2007;121:909\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurrisi TB, Bittel KM, West AB, Hojjatinia S, Hojjatinia S, Mama SK, et al. Seasons, weather, and device-measured movement behaviors: a scoping review from 2006 to 2020. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18:24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWendel-Vos W, Droomers M, Kremers S, Brug J, Van Lenthe F. Potential environmental determinants of physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2007;8:425\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng C, Feng J, Huang W, Wong SH-S. Associations between weather conditions and physical activity and sedentary time in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Place. 2021;69:102546.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarson V, Spence JC. Seasonal variation in physical activity among children and adolescents: a review. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2010;22:81\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBernard P, Chevance G, Kingsbury C, Baillot A, Romain A-J, Molinier V, et al. Climate Change, Physical Activity and Sport: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2021;51:1041\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewis LK, Maher C, Belanger K, Tremblay M, Chaput J-P, Olds T. At the Mercy of the Gods: Associations Between Weather, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Time in Children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2016;28:152\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eB\u0026ouml;cker L, Dijst M, Prillwitz J. Impact of Everyday Weather on Individual Daily Travel Behaviours in Perspective: A Literature Review. Transp Rev. 2013;33:71\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClarke P, Hirsch JA, Melendez R, Winters M, Gould JS, Ashe M, et al. Snow and Rain Modify Neighbourhood Walkability for Older Adults. Can J Aging Rev Can Vieil. 2017;36:159\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatts N, Amann M, Arnell N, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Belesova K, Boykoff M, et al. The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. The Lancet. 2019;394:1836\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, Borodulin K, Buman MP, Cardon G, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:1451\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWHO. Physical activity [Internet]. 2022. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDing D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, Finkelstein EA, Katzmarzyk PT, van Mechelen W, et al. The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet Lond Engl. 2016;388:1311\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown RD. Ameliorating the effects of climate change: Modifying microclimates through design. Landsc Urban Plan. 2011;100:372\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamstead Z, Coseo P. Building Policies, Plans, and Cities to Manage Extreme Weather Events: Perspectives from Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture. In: Smith KH, Ram PK, editors. Transform Glob Health Interdiscip Chall Perspect Strateg. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020 [cited 2023 Oct 13]. p.\u0026nbsp;261\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32112-3_17\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-32112-3_17\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRizwan AM, Dennis LYC, Liu C. A review on the generation, determination and mitigation of Urban Heat Island. J Environ Sci. 2008;20:120\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCity of Edmonton. Winter Design Guidelines. Edmonton: City of Edmonton. ; 2016. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/initiatives_innovation/winter-design-guidelines\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/initiatives_innovation/winter-design-guidelines\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLife Between Umbrellas. Rain Friendly Principles. City of Vancouver. ; 2019. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.lifebetweenumbrellas.ca/rain-friendly-principles\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.lifebetweenumbrellas.ca/rain-friendly-principles\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNasrollahi N, Ghosouri A, Khodakarami J, Taleghani M. Heat-Mitigation Strategies to Improve Pedestrian Thermal Comfort in Urban Environments: A Review. Sustainability. 2020;12:10000.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCain KL, Millstein RA, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Gavand KA, Frank LD, et al. Contribution of streetscape audits to explanation of physical activity in four age groups based on the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). Soc Sci Med. 2014;116:82\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStearns JA, Avedzi HM, Yim D, Spence JC, Labbaf F, Lamboglia CG, et al. An Umbrella Review of the Best and Most Up-to-Date Evidence on the Built Environment and Physical Activity in Older Adults\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;60 Years. Public Health Rev. 2023;44:1605474.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBall K, Timperio AF, Crawford DA. Understanding environmental influences on nutrition and physical activity behaviors: where should we look and what should we count? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;3:33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaselwandter EM, Corcoran MP, Folta SC, Hyatt R, Fenton M, Nelson ME. The built environment, physical activity, and aging in the United States: a state of the science review. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23:323\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCurtis B. Walkability audits in winter cities: planning for a healthier Canada. 2017 [cited 2023 Nov 6]; Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://hdl.handle.net/1993/32813\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://hdl.handle.net/1993/32813\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArksey H, O\u0026rsquo;Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Man Evid Synth. JBI; 2020. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4687342/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4687342/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStephenson M, Riitano D, Wilson S, Leonardi-Bee J, Mabire C, Cooper K et al. Chapter 12: Systematic reviews of measurement properties. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Man Evid Synth. JBI; 2020. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4686202/Chapter+12%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+measurement+properties\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4686202/Chapter+12%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+measurement+properties\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoster ED, Deardorff A. Open Science Framework (OSF). J Med Libr Assoc JMLA. 2017;105:203\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O\u0026rsquo;Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMunn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOuzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan\u0026mdash;a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVeritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software [Internet]. Melbourne, Australia. ; 2023. Available from: www.covidence.org.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAghaabbasi M, Moeinaddini M, Zaly Shah M, Asadi-Shekari Z, Arjomand Kermani M. Evaluating the capability of walkability audit tools for assessing sidewalks. Sustain Cities Soc. 2018;37:475\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWickham H. ggplot2., Cham. Springer International Publishing; 2016. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://link.springer.com/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://link.springer.com/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ; 2021. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.r-project.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.r-project.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNickelson J, Wang AR, Mitchell QP, Hendricks K, Paschal A. Inventory of the physical environment domains and subdomains measured by neighborhood audit tools: A systematic literature review. J Environ Psychol. 2013;36:179\u0026ndash;89.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Council on Aging of Ottawa. 2022 Snow Mole Report: How Safe is Winter Walking in Ottawa? Ottawa, ON; 2022 Aug. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://coaottawa.ca/2022-snow-mole-report-how-safe-is-winter-walking-in-ottawa/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://coaottawa.ca/2022-snow-mole-report-how-safe-is-winter-walking-in-ottawa/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcGavock J, Brunton N, Klaprat N, Swanson A, Pancoe D, Manley E, et al. Walking on Water\u0026mdash;A Natural Experiment of a Population Health Intervention to Promote Physical Activity after the Winter Holidays. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:3627.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMillstein RA, Cain KL, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Geremia C, Frank LD, et al. Development, scoring, and reliability of the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). BMC Public Health. 2013;13:403.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCervero R, Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 1997;2:199\u0026ndash;219.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaelens BE, Handy SL. Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:550\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNickelson J, Wang AR, Mitchell QP, Hendricks K, Paschal A. Inventory of the physical environment domains and subdomains measured by neighborhood audit tools: A systematic literature review. J Environ Psychol. 2013;36:179\u0026ndash;89.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePapas MA, Alberg AJ, Ewing R, Helzlsouer KJ, Gary TL, Klassen AC. The Built Environment and Obesity. Epidemiol Rev. 2007;29:129\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoster S, Giles-Corti B. The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical activity: An exploration of inconsistent findings. Prev Med. 2008;47:241\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoster S, Giles-Corti B. The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical activity: An exploration of inconsistent findings. Prev Med. 2008;47:241\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLandais LL, Damman OC, Schoonmade LJ, Timmermans DRM, Verhagen EALM, Jelsma JGM. Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17:47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChatzidimitriou A, Yannas S. Microclimate development in open urban spaces: The influence of form and materials. Energy Build. 2015;108:156\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheung PK, Jim CY. Effects of urban and landscape elements on air temperature in a high-density subtropical city. Build Environ. 2019;164:106362.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorouziasas A, Pilehchi Ha P, Ahmadi M, Rijal HB. Evaluation of urban form influence on pedestrians\u0026rsquo; wind comfort. Build Environ. 2022;224:109522.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalata F, Golasi I, Vollaro A, de Vollaro L. How high albedo and traditional buildings\u0026rsquo; materials and vegetation affect the quality of urban microclimate. A case study. Energy Build. 2015;99:32\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVanos JK, Herdt AJ, Lochbaum MR. Effects of physical activity and shade on the heat balance and thermal perceptions of children in a playground microclimate. Build Environ. 2017;126:119\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYuen B, Chor CH. Pedestrian streets in Singapore. Transportation. 1998;25:225\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLife Between Umbrellas. Rain Friendly Principles [Internet]. City of Vancouver. ; 2019. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.lifebetweenumbrellas.ca/rain-friendly-principles\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.lifebetweenumbrellas.ca/rain-friendly-principles\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRipat J, Sibley KM, Giesbrecht E, Curtis B, Touchette A, Borisoff J, et al. Winter Mobility and Community Participation Among People Who Use Mobility Devices: A Scoping Review. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2020;2:100018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRipat J, Sibley KM, Giesbrecht E, Curtis B, Touchette A, Borisoff J, et al. Winter Mobility and Community Participation Among People Who Use Mobility Devices: A Scoping Review. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2020;2:100018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu J, Dai J, Wu X, Wu S, Zhang Y, Wang F et al. Urban rainwater utilization: A review of management modes and harvesting systems. Front Environ Sci. 2023;11. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/fenvs.2023.1025665\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fenvs.2023.1025665\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu J, Dai J, Wu X, Wu S, Zhang Y, Wang F et al. Urban rainwater utilization: A review of management modes and harvesting systems. Front Environ Sci. 2023;11. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/fenvs.2023.1025665\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fenvs.2023.1025665\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAntoshkina A, Shmeleva IA. Smart Solutions for Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Arctic Cities. Digit Transform Glob Soc. Cham: Springer; 2020. pp. 301\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarlson SA, Whitfield GP, Peterson EL, Ussery EN, Watson KB, Berrigan D, et al. Geographic and Urban\u0026ndash;Rural Differences in Walking for Leisure and Transportation. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55:887\u0026ndash;95.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStout M, Collins D, Stadler SL, Soans R, Sanborn E, Summers RJ. Celebrated, not just endured. Rethinking Winter Cities Geogr Compass. 2018;12:e12379.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePressman NEP. Sustainable winter cities: Future directions for planning, policy and design. Atmos Environ. 1996;30:521\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoemmich JN, Johnson L. Seasonal Alterations in Park Visitation, Amenity Use, and Physical Activity \u0026mdash; Grand Forks, North Dakota, 2012\u0026ndash;2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E155.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams JE, Evans M, Kirtland KA, Cavnar MM, Sharpe PA, Neet MJ, et al. Development and use of a tool for assessing sidewalk maintenance as an environmental support of physical activity. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6:81\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClifton KJ, Livi Smith AD, Rodriguez D. The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landsc Urban Plan. 2007;80:95\u0026ndash;110.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrownson R, Hoehner C, Brennan L, Cook R, Elliott M, Mcmullen K. Reliability of Two Instruments for Auditing the Environment for Physical Activity. J Phys Act Health. 2004;1.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1693\u0026ndash;703.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDannenberg AL, Cramer TW, Gibson CJ. Assessing the walkability of the workplace: a new audit tool. Am J Health Promot AJHP. 2005;20:39\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoarnet MG, Day K, Alfonzo M, Forsyth A, Oakes M. The Irvine\u0026ndash;Minnesota Inventory to Measure Built Environments: Reliability Tests. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:153\u0026ndash;159e43.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoehner CM, Ivy A, Ramirez LKB, Handy S, Brownson RC. Active neighborhood checklist: a user-friendly and reliable tool for assessing activity friendliness. Am J Health Promot AJHP. 2007;21:534\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichael YL, Keast EM, Chaudhury H, Day K, Mahmood A, Sarte AFI. Revising the senior walking environmental assessment tool. Prev Med. 2009;48:247\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee C, Kim HJ, Dowdy DM, Hoelscher DM, Ory MG. TCOPPE school environmental audit tool: assessing safety and walkability of school environments. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10:949\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMillstein RA, Cain KL, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Geremia C, Frank LD, et al. Development, scoring, and reliability of the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). BMC Public Health. 2013;13:403.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScanlin K, Haardoerfer R, Kegler MC, Glanz K. Development of a pedestrian audit tool to assess rural neighborhood walkability. J Phys Act Health. 2014;11:1085\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalecki KC, Engelman CD, Peppard PE, Nieto FJ, Grabow ML, Bernardinello M, et al. The Wisconsin Assessment of the Social and Built Environment (WASABE): a multi-dimensional objective audit instrument for examining neighborhood effects on health. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1165.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGull\u0026oacute;n P, Badland HM, Alfayate S, Bilal U, Escobar F, Cebrecos A, et al. Assessing Walking and Cycling Environments in the Streets of Madrid: Comparing On-Field and Virtual Audits. J Urban Health Bull N Y Acad Med. 2015;92:923\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVanwolleghem G, Ghekiere A, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, D\u0026rsquo;Haese S, Geremia CM, et al. Using an audit tool (MAPS Global) to assess the characteristics of the physical environment related to walking for transport in youth: reliability of Belgian data. Int J Health Geogr. 2016;15:41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoortinga W, Calve T, Jones N, Lannon S, Rees T, Rodgers SE, et al. Neighborhood Quality and Attachment: Validation of the Revised Residential Environment Assessment Tool. Environ Behav. 2017;49:255\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeguin RA, Lo BK, Sriram U, Connor LM, Totta A. Development and testing of a community audit tool to assess rural built environments: Inventories for Community Health Assessment in Rural Towns. Prev Med Rep. 2017;7:169.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePliakas T, Hawkesworth S, Silverwood RJ, Nanchahal K, Grundy C, Armstrong B, et al. Optimising measurement of health-related characteristics of the built environment: Comparing data collected by foot-based street audits, virtual street audits and routine secondary data sources. Health Place. 2017;43:75\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePorter AK, Wen F, Herring AH, Rodr\u0026iacute;guez DA, Messer LC, Laraia BA, et al. Reliability and One-Year Stability of the PIN3 Neighborhood Environmental Audit in Urban and Rural Neighborhoods. J Urban Health Bull N Y Acad Med. 2018;95:431\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMooney SJ, Wheeler-Martin K, Fiedler LM, LaBelle CM, Lampe T, Ratanatharathorn A, et al. Development and Validation of a Google Street View Pedestrian Safety Audit Tool. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2020;31:301\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhosh-Dastidar M, Hunter GP, Sloan JC, Collins RL, Richardson AS, Troxel W, et al. An audit tool for longitudinal assessment of the health-related characteristics of urban neighborhoods: implementation methods and reliability results. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1519.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBethlehem JR, Mackenbach JD, Ben-Rebah M, Compernolle S, Glonti K, B\u0026aacute;rdos H, et al. The SPOTLIGHT virtual audit tool: a valid and reliable tool to assess obesogenic characteristics of the built environment. Int J Health Geogr. 2014;13:52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndersen OK, O\u0026rsquo;Halloran SA, Kolle E, Lien N, Lakerveld J, Arah OA, et al. Adapting the SPOTLIGHT Virtual Audit Tool to assess food and activity environments relevant for adolescents: a validity and reliability study. Int J Health Geogr. 2021;20:4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee S, Lee C, Nam JW, Abbey-Lambertz M, Mendoza JA. School walkability index: Application of environmental audit tool and GIS. J Transp Health. 2020;18:100880.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGriew P, Hillsdon M, Foster C, Coombes E, Jones A, Wilkinson P. Developing and testing a street audit tool using Google Street View to measure environmental supportiveness for physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:103.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSu M, Du Y, Liu Q, Ren Y, Kawachi I, Lv J, et al. Objective assessment of urban built environment related to physical activity \u0026mdash; development, reliability and validity of the China Urban Built Environment Scan Tool (CUBEST). BMC Public Health. 2014;14:109.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuintas R, Raggi A, Bucciarelli P, Franco MG, Andreotti A, Caballero FF, et al. The COURAGE Built Environment Outdoor Checklist: an objective built environment instrument to investigate the impact of the environment on health and disability. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2014;21:204\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pubh","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Public Health](http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pubh/default.aspx","title":"BMC Public Health","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Climate change, weather, season, winter, built environment, physical activity, walkability, active transportation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3789018/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3789018/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeather and season are determinants of physical activity. Therefore, it is important to ensure built environments are designed to mitigate negative impacts of weather and season on pedestrians to prevent these losses. This scoping review aims to identify built environment audits of pedestrian environments developed for use during a specific weather condition or season. Secondly, this review aims to investigate gaps in the inclusion of relevant weather mitigating built environment features in pedestrian environment audit tools.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing a standard protocol, a systematic search was executed in CINAHL, Medline and Web of Science to identify built environment audit tools of pedestrian spaces. Studies were screened, and data were extracted from selected documents by two independent reviewers (e.g., psychometric properties and audit items included). Audit items were screened for the inclusion of weather mitigating built environment features, and the tool\u0026rsquo;s capacity to measure temperature, precipitation, seasonal and sustainability impacts on pedestrians was calculated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe search returned 2823 documents. After screening and full text review, 27 articles were included. No tool was found that was developed specifically for use during a specific weather condition or season. Additionally, gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating items were found for all review dimensions (temperature, precipitation, seasonal, and sustainability items). Poorly covered items were: (1) temperature related (arctic entry presence, materials, textures, and colours of buildings, roads, sidewalk and furniture, and green design features); (2) precipitation related (drain presence, ditch presence, hazards, and snow removal features); (3) seasonal features (amenities, pedestrian scale lighting, and winter destinations and aesthetics); and (4) sustainability features (electric vehicle charging stations, renewable energy, car share, and bike share facilities).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent built environment audit tools do not adequately include weather / season mitigating items. This is a limitation as it is important to investigate if the inclusion of these items in pedestrian spaces can promote physical activity during adverse weather conditions. Because climate change is causing increased extreme weather events, a need exists for the development of a new built environment audit tool that includes relevant weather mitigating features.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Meteorological gaps in audits of pedestrian environments: a scoping review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-08 18:25:33","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3789018/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-06-10T12:31:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-06-08T01:29:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"33064127113371424981310507450572620272","date":"2024-05-27T22:52:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-05-20T15:39:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"332293279497319297570907052005661254456","date":"2024-05-20T11:48:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-05-15T06:14:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-05-03T06:18:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-01-05T05:16:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-01-05T05:14:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Public Health","date":"2023-12-21T22:15:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pubh","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Public Health](http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pubh/default.aspx","title":"BMC Public Health","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8b8e7879-cd7a-49be-b67c-78069cc4952a","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 8th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-08-01T17:12:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3789018","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19441-6","journal":{"identity":"bmc-public-health","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Public Health"},"publishedOn":"2024-07-27 16:16:19","publishedOnDateReadable":"July 27th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-08 18:25:33","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12889-024-19441-6","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19441-6","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3789018","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3789018","identity":"rs-3789018","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}