Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review

Exploring antecedents of built environment for... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (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+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229" }, "headline": "Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review", "datePublished": "2025-02-24T13:06:34", "dateModified": "2026-02-14T13:05:40", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Akshatha Rao" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rama Devi Nandineni" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background This systematic literature review (SLR) explores how urban design influences walking access in the built environment for walking of older adults, summarizing existing studies. Examining various theories, it analyses themes like safety, security, comfort, convenience, aesthetics, governance, and policy frameworks. By critically reviewing the literature, it seeks to understand current research trends and suggest future directions. Methods The study employs an evidence-based systematic approach, following the standard procedure of SLR to identify relevant studies and extract information. Results It was found that five prominent theories dominated research literature: Active Aging Framework (AAF) (35.4%), Social-Ecological Model of Health Promotion (SEMHP) (25%), Community-Engaged Urban Design Theory (CEUDT) (18%), Neighbourhood Social Environment Theory (NSET) (11%), and the fifth Ecological Model of Aging (EMA) (8%). Empirical research dominated (37.5%), followed by grounded theory (20.8%), case study (18.8%), comparative study (12.5%), document analysis (8.3%), and analytical research (2.1%) in terms of the research type. The SLR revealed that most research uses empirical methods and focuses on applying existing theories. Conclusions It identifies opportunities for future research, suggesting areas for model integration, advancement, and application. Notably, it highlights the potential of combining the two most relevant theories for interventions promoting older adults’ health through walkable environments. This review can aid practitioners and researchers in identifying the theoretical underpinning of key factors for designing walkable cities that cater to older adults’ needs. A potential limitation is its focus on dominant theories, excluding others that might offer valuable insights. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1", "name": "Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older..." } } ] } Home Browse Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Rao A and Nandineni RD. Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161255.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Akshatha Rao https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7492-460X 1 , Rama Devi Nandineni https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1115-5190 2 Akshatha Rao https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7492-460X 1 , Rama Devi Nandineni https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1115-5190 2 PUBLISHED 24 Feb 2025 Author details Author details 1 Manipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India 2 Manipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India Akshatha Rao Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Rama Devi Nandineni Roles: Data Curation, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway. Abstract Background This systematic literature review (SLR) explores how urban design influences walking access in the built environment for walking of older adults, summarizing existing studies. Examining various theories, it analyses themes like safety, security, comfort, convenience, aesthetics, governance, and policy frameworks. By critically reviewing the literature, it seeks to understand current research trends and suggest future directions. Methods The study employs an evidence-based systematic approach, following the standard procedure of SLR to identify relevant studies and extract information. Results It was found that five prominent theories dominated research literature: Active Aging Framework (AAF) (35.4%), Social-Ecological Model of Health Promotion (SEMHP) (25%), Community-Engaged Urban Design Theory (CEUDT) (18%), Neighbourhood Social Environment Theory (NSET) (11%), and the fifth Ecological Model of Aging (EMA) (8%). Empirical research dominated (37.5%), followed by grounded theory (20.8%), case study (18.8%), comparative study (12.5%), document analysis (8.3%), and analytical research (2.1%) in terms of the research type. The SLR revealed that most research uses empirical methods and focuses on applying existing theories. Conclusions It identifies opportunities for future research, suggesting areas for model integration, advancement, and application. Notably, it highlights the potential of combining the two most relevant theories for interventions promoting older adults’ health through walkable environments. This review can aid practitioners and researchers in identifying the theoretical underpinning of key factors for designing walkable cities that cater to older adults’ needs. A potential limitation is its focus on dominant theories, excluding others that might offer valuable insights. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Aesthetics, built environment, comfort, convenience, older adults, safety, security, walkability. Corresponding Author(s) Rama Devi Nandineni ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Rama Devi Nandineni Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Rao A and Nandineni RD. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Rao A and Nandineni RD. Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161255.1 ) First published: 24 Feb 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161255.1 ) Latest published: 14 Feb 2026, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161255.2 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction The built environment for walking (BEW) plays a pivotal role in shaping the daily experiences and well-being of older adults, particularly in urban settings where factors such as walkability profoundly impact their mobility, independence, and overall quality of life ( Wang et al., 2024 ). As populations age globally, understanding and enhancing the walkability of urban environments for older adults have become increasingly important. Walkability encompasses various aspects of the physical environment, including sidewalks, street design, access to amenities, and safety features, all of which influence individuals’ ability and willingness to walk for transportation, recreation, and socialization ( Hijriyah et al., 2024 ). Despite its significance, there remains a need for a comprehensive synthesis of the existing literature to assess the current state of research on BEW specifically tailored to the needs of older adults. In the introduction, it is crucial to underscore the importance of conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) as opposed to other types of literature reviews. Unlike traditional narrative reviews, which may lack transparency and rigor in their selection and synthesis of literature, an SLR employs a systematic and structured approach to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant research studies on a particular topic ( Caporali et al., 2024 ; Cipriani & Geddes, 2003 ). By adhering to predefined criteria and transparent methodologies, an SLR minimizes bias and enhances the reliability and validity of its findings, providing a comprehensive overview of the existing body of knowledge. Moreover, an SLR allows for the synthesis of heterogeneous research findings, enabling researchers to identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the literature with greater precision ( Danese et al., 2018 ). Unlike scoping reviews, which aim to map the breadth of available literature without necessarily assessing its quality or synthesizing findings, an SLR goes a step further by critically appraising the methodological rigor and relevance of included studies ( Peters et al., 2017 ). This rigorous approach not only ensures the credibility of the review findings but also provides insights into the quality and applicability of existing research to inform future research directions and evidence-based practices. Furthermore, an SLR offers distinct advantages over traditional narrative reviews in terms of transparency, reproducibility, and replicability ( Ferrari, 2015 ). In contrast to narrative reviews, the SLR distinguishes itself with its systematic, empirical, evidence-driven, and transparent approach, as emphasized by Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2015) . Its significance goes beyond mere summarization, as it involves the mapping of critical domains that warrant active research endeavors. Furthermore, the preference for an SLR is rooted in its ability to minimize bias through comprehensive literature searches, enabling researchers to make informed decisions, establish robust procedures, conduct thorough analyses, and derive evidence-based conclusions. By documenting each step of the review process, from search strategy development to data extraction and synthesis, an SLR enables other researchers to replicate the review process and verify its findings. This transparency enhances the credibility and trustworthiness of review findings, facilitating knowledge dissemination and advancement within the academic community. Finally, the main aim of this research is to identify the scope for future research in the BEW of older adults in urban settings, and employing an SLR ensures a comprehensive and rigorous synthesis of diverse research findings, enabling the identification of key factors influencing walkability and the development of targeted interventions tailored to the unique needs of this demographic in urban environments. This systematic literature review (SLR) aims to address this gap by providing a comprehensive overview of the research landscape surrounding BEW and its implications for older adults in urban settings. By systematically synthesizing and analysing the available literature, this review seeks to identify key research trends, methodological approaches, and, most importantly, theories applicable to the BEW of older adults and identify gaps in knowledge to inform future research directions and policy interventions. The importance of understanding and enhancing walkability for older adults is underscored by demographic shifts, urbanization trends, and the growing recognition of the role of the built environment in promoting active aging and healthy lifestyles. Methods This study specifically adopts the SLR methodology, driven by its primary objective of formulating hypotheses for future empirical investigations. The systematic research procedure evolves through specific stages, enabling a thorough and orderly exploration of the literature. By adhering to this detailed approach, this research aims to offer valuable insights into comprehending the antecedents and consequences of the BEW of older adults in an urban setting, taking into account the safety, security, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics of the built environment. The sequential steps of SLR include defining the research questions, developing inclusion and exclusion criteria, conducting a comprehensive search of relevant databases and sources, screening and selecting studies based on predefined criteria, extracting relevant data from selected studies, evaluating the quality of included studies, synthesizing findings from selected studies, interpreting and analysing synthesized data, drawing conclusions and identifying implications for future research or practice. Defining research questions To gain insight into the current state of research on the BEW of older adults, specifically in terms of its antecedents and outcomes, the following four research questions have been identified: RQ1 – What are the dominant theories that contribute to the body of knowledge in the BEW of older adults? How does it contribute to the future growth of research? RQ2 – What is the current state of publication in terms of the database, specifically in terms of the type of research contribution, research focus, and research type? RQ3 – What is the current phase of model development/testing/advancement/integration in this area, and what are the possible research gaps? RQ4 – What research directions emerge based on the answers obtained to RQ2 and RQ3, and what would be the appropriate strategy to carry out future research on this topic? These four research questions emerged through the initial literature survey that was undertaken to study the antecedents of BEW in older adults. The finding of the answer to RQ1 would enable the identification of the theories that influence the BEW of older adults. The answer to RQ2 would enable the identification of publications in terms of research contribution, research focus, and research type in BEW. The answer to RQ3 would open the scope for an understanding of whether there is a need to develop the model, test the existing model, work on the advancement of the model, or further compare the existing models to find their convergence or divergence in terms of the ECS of agribusiness. Finally, the answer to RQ4 will shed light on the future direction of research on the BEW of older adults considering the role of the associated theories. Identifying keywords and the search strategy The initial literature survey was performed to uncover theories that affect the antecedents of BEW in older adults and, accordingly, five prominent theories: 1. Community-Engaged Urban Design Theory (CEUDT). 2. Ecological Model of Ageing (EMA), 3. Social-Ecological Model of Health Promotion (SEMHP), 4. Active Aging Framework (AAF), and 5. Neighbourhood social environment theory (NSET) was identified. The research studies available on BEW using these five theories were searched thoroughly in standard databases. The electronic databases that had publications on BEW in the urban context were identified, and as a result, 15 such indexing agencies were scrutinized, which contained peer-reviewed journals, a high volume of BEW literature, and content-specific topics in that field. The indexing agencies of the databases considered were as follows: 1. Google Scholar 2. Scopus, 3. Web of Science, 4. ProQuest, 5. SAGE, 6. Science Direct, 7. JSTOR, 8. Wiley Online, 9. Springer Link, 10. Taylor & Francis Online, 11. EBSCO, 12. SSRN, 13. ERIC, 14. Emerald Insight, and 15. Elsevier’s Science Direct. The databases from which the papers were selected were as follows: 1. SCOPUS, 2. Clarivate Analytics, 3. ProQuest, 4. SAGE, 5. JSTOR, 6. Wiley Online Library, 7. SpringerLink, 8. Taylor & Francis Online, 9. EBSCO, 10. ERIC, and 11. Emerald Insight. Fixing the years of starting and ending the search of publications in the database is very important, as it provides data for trend analysis. While there are no very well-established hard and fast rules, they are left to the discretion of the researchers to arrive at the period so that the major trends are covered. In this SLR, five theories have a dominant influence on the research construct. Each of these theories has different origins and developmental phases. CEUDT has had an impact on publications during the last 10–15 years (2010–2024), with the rationale that urban design theories, including community engagement, have evolved with a focus on inclusivity and participation. Recent publications are likely to capture the contemporary understanding and applications of community engagement in the context of urban design for walkability. The EMA has had an ideal period of development since the past 20–30 years (1994–2024), the rationale being that researchers have applied this theory since the last 20–30 years to provide a comprehensive understanding of its development and application in relation to the built environment for older adults. The SEMHP has had an ideal period of impact during the last 15–20 years (2004–2024), with the rationale being that the last 15–20 years have witnessed the development and understanding of the relationship between the social environment and health outcomes. The AAF has had a related impact during the last 10–15 years (2009–2024), the rationale being that the last 10–15 years will capture the contemporary literature on how the AAF has been applied to the built environment, especially in promoting physical activity among older adults. Finally, the NSET has had an ideal period during the last 10–20 years (2004–2024), the rationale for the choice being – during this time, the theory has been explored to provide insights into how this theory has been incorporated into research on the built environment and walkability. Importantly, the primary objective of this research is to explore the antecedents and outcomes of BEW for older adults. Therefore, even though theories have been active in the generic sense of the wellbeing of older adults, the specific context of the BEW of older adults dates back to the early 2000s. One of the earliest references in the search results dates back to 2003, with a study by Saelens, Sallis and Frank discussing the environmental correlates of walking and cycling ( Van Dyck et al., 2013 ; Winters et al., 2015 ). Another study by Takahashi, Baker, Cha, and Targonski was published in 2012, providing insights into the relationships among walking, biking, and the built environment for adults aged over 70 years ( Takahashi et al., 2012 ). These findings indicate that the field has been actively studied for more than two decades, with ongoing research contributing to our understanding of how the built environment can affect physical activity and quality of life among older adults. Therefore, this SLR considers the period of publication selection from 2000–2023. Having fixed the period of review of the articles, the search strategy included three sets of search items: (1) a list of theories available in the BEW of older adults in the context of urban design (e.g., “Community-Engaged Urban Design Theory”); (2) theories and their relevance in BEW, which targeted associated concepts (e.g., ‘safety’, “security”, “comfort”, “convenience”, and “aesthetics”; and (3) discipline-specific terms combined with the BEW of older adults (e.g., “policy frameworks” and ‘governance”).” With respect to the search approach and search queries, diverse search strings were employed for each database. This is due to the distinct nature of each database, making a singular search string insufficient for obtaining the desired results. Consequently, numerous comprehensive searches were executed via various combinations of words and search strings. Table 1 provides details of the list of search strings and their combinations. Table 1. Search strings and Boolean operators. Theory/Concept Key words and strings with Boolean operators 1. Community-Engaged Urban Design Theory (CEUDT) Keywords: Community-Engaged Urban Design Theory, Built Environment, Walkability, Older Adults. Search Strings with Boolean operators: (“Community-Engaged Urban Design Theory” OR “Community-Engaged Design”) AND (“Built Environment” OR “Urban Planning”) AND (“Walkability” OR “Pedestrian-friendly”) AND (“Older Adults” OR “Elderly”). (“Community-Engaged Urban Design Theory” OR “Participatory Urban Design”) AND (“Built Environment” OR “Architectural Design”) AND (“Walkability” OR “Accessible Spaces”) AND (“Older Adults” OR “Senior Citizens”). (“Community-Engaged Urban Design Theory” OR “Community-Centered Design”) AND (“Built Environment” OR “Environmental Design”) AND (“Walkability” OR “Senior-Friendly Spaces”) AND (“Older Adults” OR “Aging Population”). 2. Ecological Model of Aging (EMA) Keywords: Ecological Model of Aging, Built Environment, Walkability, Older Adults, and Aging and Environment. Search Strings with Boolean operators: (“Ecological Model of Aging”) AND (“Built Environment” OR “Walkability”) AND (“Older Adults” OR “Aging and Environment”) "Ecological Model of Aging” AND “Built Environment” AND “Walkability” AND “Older Adults" (“Ecological Model of Aging” OR “Aging and Environment”) AND (“Built Environment” OR “Walkability”) AND (“Older Adults” OR “Elderly”) (“Built Environment” AND “Walkability” AND “Ecological Approach to Aging”). 3. Social-Ecological Model of Health Promotion (SEMHP) Key words: Social-Ecological Model of Health Promotion Built Environment, Walkability, Older Adults, Aging Population, Public Health, Physical Activity, Urban Planning, Environmental Health, Health Promotion. Search Strings with Boolean operators: (“Social-Ecological Model of Health Promotion”) AND (“Built Environment"(AND (“Walkability”) (“Older Adults” AND “Built Environment”) AND (“Walkability”) (“Social-Ecological Model”) AND (“Aging Population”) AND (“Urban Planning”) (“Health Promotion”) AND (“Built Environment”) AND (“Physical Activity”) AND (“Older Adults”) (“Environmental Health”) AND (“Social-Ecological Model”) AND (“Walkability”) AND (“Older Adults”) 4. Active Aging Framework (AAF) Key words: Active Aging Framework, Built Environment, Walkability, Older Adults, Aging in Place. Search Strings: (“Active Aging Framework”) AND (“Built Environment”) AND (“Walkability”) (“Active Aging Framework”) AND (“Older Adults”) AND (“Walkability”) (“Built Environment”) AND (“Walkability”) AND (“Aging in Place”) (“Active Aging Framework”) OR (“Built Environment”) OR (“Walkability”) (“Active Aging Framework”) NOT (“Adult”) (to exclude irrelevant age groups). 5. Neighbourhood Social Environment Theory (NSET) Key words: Neighbourhood Social Environment Theory, Built Environment, Walkability, Older Adults, Aging Population, Urban Design, Public Spaces, Social Interaction, Physical Activity Search Strings: (“Neighbourhood Social Environment Theory”) AND (“Built Environment” OR “Urban Design”) AND (“Walkability” OR “Physical Activity”) AND (“Older Adults”) (“Neighbourhood Social Environment Theory” OR “Social Environment Theory”) AND "Built Environment" AND (“Walkability” OR “Physical Activity”) AND (“Aging Population”) (“Older Adults”) AND (“Built Environment”) AND (“Walkability”) AND (“Neighbourhood Social Environment Theory” OR “Social Interaction”) (“Built Environment” OR “Urban Design”) AND (“Neighbourhood Social Environment Theory”) AND (“Older Adults”) AND (“Walkability” OR “Physical Activity”). Selecting and assessing the quality of primary studies Search strings were used for all selected theories, and 622 studies were retrieved in total. First, manual screening of relevant studies based on the title was considered. In the case of the title being relevant, abstract reading was undertaken, and in this elaborate process, 202 studies were excluded, which included conferences, workshops, books, editorial reviews, dissertations, and book reviews. The articles were narrowed down to 420 relevant studies, and after the elimination of 136 studies with repetition and similarity checks in multiple databases, the number of articles was reduced to 284. In the next step, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to each individual study by undertaking an intricate study of their introduction, literature review, results, and conclusion. A total of 169 studies were removed as a part of this exercise; thus, we were able to select 115 studies related to BEW in older adults. The obtained studies were further subjected to quality assessment , and 19 studies did not meet our specific quality criteria; the sample size was reduced to 96 papers. The elimination process is shown in Figure 1 . The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the papers selected for review were as follows: Figure 1. Flow chart of the selection process for review. Inclusion criteria The articles were included if they: • dealt explicitly with research constructs of BEW using relevant theories, • discussed a theory that has bearing on the BEW of older adults, • incorporated theory/theories and methods for the establishment/evaluation of an intervention to improve BEW to suit the requirements of older adults, • empirically tested a theory by providing a clear description of the research design • dealt exclusively with the comparison of two or more theories, • addressed philosophical aspects such as epistemology, ontology, etc., in connection with the BEW and wellbeing of older adults through physical activity, • evaluated a hypothetical model by providing linkages to the core model and • criticized, proposed new solutions, and presented new/extended/hybridized models or theories to develop contemporary models of BEW. Exclusion criteria Research articles were not considered if they: • included BEW in the title and abstract but focused primarily on related aspects such as environmental sustainability, • qualitatively discussed BEW concerning historical and current scenarios across various contexts, including sectorial, regional, national, international, etc., • approached challenges and issues related to BEW development, and • belonged to categories such as books, conference posters, editorial commentaries, handbooks, dissertations, keynote addresses, nonpeer-reviewed journal publications, nonEnglish publications, proposals, research presentations, technical reports, tutorial course works, and workshop summaries. The articles selected were under one of the four categories as follows: 1. Evaluative articles – These articles tested the theory empirically. 2. Descriptive articles – These articles contained the original description of a theory or extension of that theory and used all three key terms of specific interest to this research – outcome achievement in BEW. 3. Intervention articles – These articles used a particular theory to evaluate or inform development by aiming at an intervention to enhance the BEW of older adults. 4. View-point articles – These articles were opinion-based articles on the BEW of older adults based on the general observations of researchers on the challenges faced and strategies adopted by policy makers. Quality assessment The evaluation of study quality poses a significant challenge in the context of an SLR. Determining what qualifies as a high-quality paper is largely subjective, as there are no standardized definitions for such assessments. However, certain factors, including the research context, design, relevant research questions, journal impact factor, precise definitions of key terms, and contributions to the body of knowledge, as outlined by Xiao and Watson (2019) , are fundamental considerations for selecting articles. This study adopts an evidence-based SLR approach, and the criteria for assessing quality specifically align with the research context. A thorough process involved multiple readings of the articles and strict adherence to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, ensuring a comprehensive review and quality scrutiny of the selected articles. Additionally, the selection of articles was guided by key literature that underscores the synthesis of scientific and philosophical aspects of theories, with a focus on reproducibility for experimental purposes. Data extraction perspectives To streamline the process of extracting data, we formulated a Microsoft Excel form that encapsulates crucial aspects of each study. This measure was pivotal not only for organizing study features but also for consolidating data gleaned from the chosen studies. The examination of the created form concentrated on two viewpoints: initially, the overall traits of the research studies, and second, the utilized classification scheme. The subsequent sections elaborate on these two facets, which are integral to this procedure. Two reviewers independently extracted data from each report. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies when disagreements arose. Data extraction was conducted independently to reduce bias and enhance reliability. Data extracted by one reviewer was cross-checked by another to ensure accuracy and completeness. No direct contact with study investigators was reported in the manuscript for additional or missing data. The process relied on manual, reviewer-led efforts to maintain rigor and accuracy. This structured and collaborative approach ensured high-quality data extraction, minimizing errors and biases in synthesizing the included studies. Data synthesis procedure During the data synthesis, we thoroughly scrutinized and merged findings related to general characteristics, the identification of theories and articles, research design, target behavior, and the classification scheme of studies. The following section offers a detailed breakdown of these particulars. Data extraction The data extraction forms the basis for synthesis of the data in an SLR, and to facilitate this, we included two distinct parts: (i) identification of the general characteristics of the included studies and (ii) development of the classification scheme. General characteristics of the papers This section intends to provide an analysis of the papers incorporated in this research, specifically addressing the initial three research questions outlined in the introduction. The extracted data included information on (i) the country where the research was conducted, (ii) the database utilized for the study, (iii) the journal in which the study was published, (iv) the theory employed, (v) the article type, (vi) the source type (primary and secondary), (vii) the research design (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), (viii) the target behavior, (ix) the type of sampling, and (x) the measurement of variables related to the BEW of older adults. Additionally, fundamental details about the studies, including the author’s name, study title, and study year, were documented for reference purposes. Classification scheme The selected studies were classified based on three perspectives that are relevant to this research: research contribution, research focus, and research type. Each of them is discussed in the following sections. Contribution type The BEW of older adults as a research construct can derive its theoretical foundation from theories in different areas of study, including sociology, urban planning, public health, gerontology, environmental psychology, and architecture. Research focus To answer RQ4 of this research, four categories of research focus areas were identified, as described below . 1. Model development : Past studies on the development of models for BEW have investigated the influence of antecedents such as social support, age-friendly urban design, and community engagement programs on BEW (e.g., John & Gunter, 2016 ). The focus was on understanding the relationships between these factors and the outcomes associated with increased physical activity, enhanced socialization, and improved quality of life for older adults. Researchers have employed a range of research designs, including cross-sectional analyses, longitudinal studies, and intervention-based trials, to explore the multifaceted dynamics between built environment features and the desired outcomes in the context of older adults’ walking behaviors (e.g., Annear et al., 2024 ). Studies have used geographic information systems (GISs) to analyse the relationship between the built environment and older adults’ physical activity levels (e.g., De Wolf & Bocken, 2024 ). Other studies have employed GPS devices to map individual activities within the environment, thereby providing measures of the life/activity space and destinations. Moreover, research has focused on the use of technology in facilitating older adults’ independence and participation in meaningful activities, such as managing daily tasks and overcoming environmental challenges. 2. Model testing : In the realm of research studies focusing on model testing of the BEW of older adults, past investigations delved into various antecedents, including social support, age-friendly urban design, and community engagement programs (e.g., Rupp et al., 2020 ). These studies sought to understand the nuanced relationship between these factors and their impact on the outcomes associated with increased physical activity, enhanced socialization, and improved quality of life for older adults. Past research aimed to validate and refine models that could effectively predict and explain the complex interplay between built environment features, antecedents, and multifaceted outcomes in the context of older adults’ well-being. Some studies have tested specific aspects related to the walkability of older adults. Some studies have utilized semi structured interviews to gather insights from older adults about their walking habits and the factors influencing their decision to walk. Studies have shown that social support plays a significant role in encouraging older adults to continue walking despite challenges, such as inclement weather (e.g., Leyden, 2003 ). Studies have also revealed the importance of pedestrian facilities, such as benches and well-lit walking paths, in enhancing walking behaviors among older adults. The aesthetic appeal of the walking environment, including elements such as natural surroundings and cleanliness, was noted to make walking more enjoyable (e.g., Kou et al., 2019 ). Another stream of model testing focused on the fear of falling as a critical concern related to walking among older adults. The findings suggested that past falls increased older adults’ anxiety regarding walking, potentially preventing them from undertaking activities such as walking that might expose them to risky environments such as uneven ground surfaces, and specific interventions were administered to prevent falls in older adults. These studies have demonstrated the significance of model testing in understanding the impact of the built environment on older adults’ walking habits and the influence of various factors on their physical activity levels and social interactions. 3. Model advancement : Several types of research studies have been conducted in the past to advance the model of the BEW of older adults. These studies have focused on antecedents such as social support, age-friendly urban design, and community engagement programs and outcomes such as increased physical activity, enhanced socialization, and improved quality of life (e.g., Rookset al., 2022). Numerous quantitative studies have been conducted to measure the impact of these antecedents on outcomes. These studies often involve statistical analysis of data collected from surveys or observational studies. Studies have collected data on the frequency of walking among older adults in different neighbourhoods and then correlated this with factors such as the availability of age-friendly urban design features, community engagement programs, and social support (e.g., John & Gunter, 2016 ). Qualitative research has also played a significant role in advancing the model. This type of research involves detailed interviews or focus groups with older adults, urban planners, and community leaders to gain insights into the perceptions and experiences related to BEW. The findings from qualitative research have provided rich, nuanced data that complement the quantitative data. Some studies have employed experimental designs to test the effectiveness of different interventions aimed at improving BEW. Studies have compared the outcomes for older adults living in neighbourhoods with different levels of age-friendly urban design features before and after an intervention was implemented ( Carlson et al., 2012 ). Longitudinal studies have tracked the changes in BEW over time, providing valuable insights into the long-term effects of interventions. These studies often involved follow-up surveys or observations over several years, allowing researchers to examine trends and changes in the outcomes. These types of research studies have contributed significantly to the advancement of the model of BEW for older adults, providing valuable insights into the antecedents and outcomes related to BEW. 4. Model integration : The findings from studies with an orientation towards model integration have contributed valuable insights into the complex interplay between built environment features, social support structures, and community engagement initiatives, shedding light on the potential for positive outcomes in terms of the well-being and lifestyle of older adults. Studies have explored the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among older adults (e.g., Carlson et al., 2012 ; Van Dyck et al., 2013 ). Studies conducted by the Healthy Urban Living and Active Population (HULAP) project have investigated the associations between the built environment and physical activity in different countries. These studies utilized various methodologies, including surveys, interviews, and observations, to collect data and analyse the results. The findings of these studies indicate that the built environment plays a significant role in promoting physical activity and improving the quality of life of older adults. However, several researchers have emphasized that However, there is a growing consensus among scholars that additional research is required to unravel the complexities of these interactions and to establish evidence-based methods for fostering walkable spaces that cater to older adults. Research type Six different research types have been identified in publications on ECS in agribusiness, which are described in Table 2 . Table 2. Research type and description. Research type Description 1. Grounded theory Grounded Theory in the context of BEW is widely used as a qualitative research methodology. This approach has enabled researchers to systematically assess the environment and develop conceptual structures through assimilation of information, leading to a thorough inquiry of the intricacies associated with BEW. 2. Comparative study This approach was employed to examine and compare various components BEW. By examining walkability features across different environments, researchers aimed to determine links between design elements of BEW and older adults’ walking patterns. 3. Case study In research on BEW for older adults, the case study based research has often been used to delve deep into the finer nuances of BEW. This involves examining of one unit for analysis, say block, township, neighbourhoods, or urban settings. The strength of case study lies in its ability to have a thorough understanding of the contextual factors that influence walking behaviours among older adults. 4. Document Analysis Document analysis has been applied in BEW for studying a wide range of city planning materials, construction designs, social development reports, community improvement reports, related to the built environment. This approach allowed for the extraction of valuable information from existing records, contributing to a comprehensive understanding etc., related to the outcome achievement through interventions in BEW for older adults. 5. Empirical research Researchers have employed various empirical methodologies, including observational studies, surveys, and interviews, to collect quantitative and qualitative data on the built environment factors influencing walkability for older individuals. These empirical studies often examined variables such as sidewalk accessibility, green spaces, safety features, and urban design elements. 6. Analytical research In analytical research, researchers employed statistical analyses and modelling techniques to systematically examine and interpret the relationships between various elements of the built environment and walkability for older adults. The focus of analytical research in this context included assessing the impact of factors such as urban design, infrastructure, and safety features on the walking behaviour of older adults. Table 3. Frequency of occurrence of theories in publications. Theory Number of articles Contributing authors Contribution 1. Active Aging Framework 34 Baert (2011); Bonaccorsi et al. (2020); Cerin et al. (2017); Davern et al. (2020); Dikken et al. (2020); Jeste et al. (2016); John & Gunter (2016); Leung et al. (2021); Levasseur & Naud (2022); MacCarthy et al. (2023); Mahmood et al. (2012); Marquet et al. (2017); Michael & Carlson (2009); Nelischer & Loukaitou-Sideris (2023); Ribeiro et al. (2024); Rosso et al. (2021); Sasidharan et al. (2006); Tuckett et al. (2018); Van Dyck et al. (2013); Van Hoof et al. (2021); Winters et al. (2015); Wood et al. (2022); Xia et al. (2024); Yang et al. (2024); Zheng & Yang (2019); Gharaveis (2020); Gripko & Joseph (2024); Echeverría et al. (2023); Fang et al. (2022); Golden & Earp (2012); Caronte-Veisz (2022); Dabelko-Schoeny et al. (2020); Santamouris et al. (2012); Rupp et al. (2020). 35.4% 2. Social-Ecological Model of Health Promotion 25 Foster & Giles-Corti (2008); Cerin et al. (2017); Carlson et al. (2012); Agampodi et al. (2015); Asadi-Shekari et al. (2015); Braun & Clarke (2006); De Wolf & Bocken (2024); Emish et al. (2023); Ferrari (2015); He et al. (2020); Michael & Carlson (2009); Pykett & Stathi (2022); Silveira & Motl (2019); Smarr et al. (2024); Sundling & Jakobsson (2023); Ulijaszek (2018); Van Dyck et al. (2013); Winters et al. (2015); Ferrari (2015); De Wolf & Bocken (2024); Emish et al. (2023); He et al. (2020); Silveira & Motl (2019); Smarr et al. (2024); Sundling & Jakobsson (2023). 26.0% 3. Community-Engaged Urban Design Theory 18 Anthony Jr (2024); Ardabili et al. (2024); Kou et al. (2019); Mbata (2024); Rooks et al. (2022); Adkins et al. (2017); Askarizad et al. (2024); Danese, P., de Castro et al. (2024); Elderbrock et al. (2020); Fonseca et al. (2022); Gray, et al. (2012); Takano et al. (2002); Üzümcüogğlu & Polay (2024); Stearns et al. (2021); Shealy et al. (2024); Senetra et al. (2024), Elderbrock et al. (2020); Hijriyah et al. (2024). 18.8% 4. Neighbourhood Social Environment Theory 11 Leyden (2003); Cattell et al. (2008); Aghaabbasi et al. (2018); Austin (2024); Litt et al. (2024); Takahashi et al. (2012); Bowling et al. (2013); Lewinson & Esnard (2015); Wang et al. (2024); Dines et al. (2008). 11.5% 5. Ecological Model of Aging 8 Annear et al. (2024), Baobeid et al. (2021), Bonaccorsi et al. (2020), Buffel et al., 2021; Davern et al. (2020), Dikken et al. (2020), Fang et al. (2022), and Gharaveis (2020). 8.3% 96 100 Data synthesis In the context of an SLR, the synthesis of data involves systematically analysing and combining findings from various studies to generate new insights or conclusions. This systematic process includes extracting, organizing, and integrating data obtained from the included studies in accordance with the review’s research objectives or questions. The primary aim of data synthesis in a systematic literature review is to provide a thorough and evidence-based summary of the findings from the studies included in the review. Results of the analysis of general characteristics Publications on the BEW of older adults who adopt the CEUDT generally share several common characteristics. These publications often featured an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on insights from fields such as urban planning, gerontology, and community health. They tend to focus on the collaborative aspects of urban design, emphasizing the involvement of older adults and the broader community in the planning and implementation of walkability initiatives (e.g., Cheranchery et al., 2024 ). Moreover, these publications commonly highlight the social and environmental factors associated with CEUDT, emphasizing the importance of community engagement programs, age-friendly urban design, and social support structures (e.g., Davern et al., 2020 ). Some of the studies employed mixed-methods research designs, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to capture both the subjective experiences and objective outcomes related to the adoption of CEUDT in enhancing the built environment for walking among older adults. Publications exploring the BEW of older adults, particularly those adopting the EMA, exhibit distinctive characteristics. These studies encompass a comprehensive perspective, considering various ecological levels, such as individual, interpersonal, community, and societal factors, that influence the walking behavior of older individuals (e.g., Golden & Earp, 2012 ; Rosso et al., 2021 ). Researchers have delved into the intricate interplay among the physical environment, social structures, and individual characteristics, acknowledging the dynamic and multifaceted nature of aging within the context of the built environment ( Davern et al., 2020 ). Publications employing the EMA have presented a holistic understanding of the factors shaping walkability, addressing the complex interactions between older adults and their surroundings (e.g., Van Dyck et al., 2013 ). Moreover, these studies commonly emphasize the importance of ecological approaches in developing interventions and policies aimed at enhancing walkability for older adults, contributing to a nuanced comprehension of the subject matter. Publications on the BEW of older adults that have adopted the SEMHP have focused on the multifaceted interactions between individuals and their environment, emphasizing the dynamic interplay of factors at various levels, including individual, interpersonal, community, and societal aspects (e.g., Michael & Carlson, 2009 ; Rooks et al., 2022 ). Research within this framework has explored how the SEMHP can be applied to increase walkability for older adults by considering factors such as social support, neighbourhood design, community engagement, and policy implications. Moreover, these publications commonly employed a holistic approach, acknowledging that the impact of the built environment on walking behavior is influenced by a complex interconnection of social, environmental, and individual factors. The overarching goal of these studies has been to offer a comprehensive understanding of the factors affecting walkability among older adults within the context of the SEMHP. Publications focusing on the BEW of older adults who adopt the AAF have delved into multifaceted aspects of the built environment, emphasizing its role in facilitating active aging among older individuals. Research within this framework has explored the impact of urban design, infrastructure, and community planning on the walking behavior of older adults. These studies have commonly employed a holistic perspective, considering not only the physical attributes of the environment but also the social and psychological dimensions (e.g., Carlson et al., 2012 ; Sundling & Jakobsson, 2023 )). The integration of the AAF in these publications reflected a broader understanding of aging that goes beyond mere physical health, incorporating elements such as social engagement, accessibility, and quality of life into the discourse on the built environment and its implications for active aging among older adults. Publications focusing on the BEW of older adults and adopting the NSET typically share common characteristics. These publications have investigated the intricate interplay between the physical environment and social factors influencing walking behaviors among older individuals ( Emish et al., 2023 ; Litt et al., 2024 ). They often explore how neighbourhood design, social support systems, and community engagement initiatives impact the walkability of older adults. Some of the studies adopting NSET in this context have employed mixed-methods approaches, incorporating quantitative assessments and qualitative insights to comprehensively understand the dynamics at play. Furthermore, these publications emphasize the importance of considering the social environment alongside physical features in designing age-friendly neighbourhoods that promote walking and contribute to the overall well-being of older adults (e.g., Davern et al., 2020 ; John & Gunter, 2016 ). The general characteristics of such publications underscore the importance of a holistic and integrated approach to studying the built environment for walkability among older adults through the lens of neighbourhood social environment theory. Analysing the publication trend based on various indexing agencies reveals distinct patterns in the dissemination of research on the BEW of older adults. Scopus emerged as the leading indexing agency, with 13 publications, constituting 13.5% of the total. Google Scholar closely followed with 11 publications (11.5%), whereas Web of Science accounted for 10 publications (10.4%). ProQuest SAGE and ScienceDirect shared similar levels of prominence, with 9 publications each, representing 9.4% each. JSTOR contributed 8 publications (8.3%), and the Wiley Online Library contributed 6 publications (6.3%). Springer Link, had 5 publications (5.2%). Taylor & Francis had 4 publications (4.2%). EBSCO and SSRN had 3 publications each (3.1%). ERIC, Emerald Insight, and Elsevier’s Science Direct each contributed 2 publications (2.1%). This trend analysis highlights the diverse sources contributing to the literature on the BEW of older adults, reflecting a wide-ranging interest and dissemination across reputable indexing platforms ( Figure 2 ). The trend analysis of the selected papers in this systematic literature review (SLR) reveals a diverse distribution across various databases. SCOPUS stands out as the predominant database, contributing 25 publications, constituting 26% of the total. Clarivate analytics followed closely, with 22 publications, accounting for 22.9% of the publications. ProQuest with 10 publications represents 10.4% of the total number of publications. SAGE had 9 publications, constituting 9.4%. JSTOR, with 8 publications, contributes 8.3%, whereas the Wiley Online Library and Springer Link, with 5 publications each, contribute 5.2%, and Taylor & Francis and EBSCO each contribute 4 publications, with a 4.2% share. Furthermore, ERIC and Emerald Insight, with 2 each, contribute 2.1% of the share. This trend highlights the wide-ranging exploration of BEW of older adults across multiple scholarly databases, highlighting a comprehensive and inclusive approach to the literature selection ( Figure 3 ). Figure 2. Distribution of publications based on indexing agencies. Figure 3. Distribution of publications in databases. The trend analysis of the country-wide distribution of publications, as depicted in Figure 4 , reveals insights into the geographical spread of research contributions. Among the 18 countries represented, the United States emerges as the leading contributor, with 22 publications, constituting 22.9% of the total publications, followed by the United Kingdom, with 13 publications (13.5%). Australia has 11 publications, accounting for 11.5%, whereas Canada has 9 publications, accounting for 9.4%. Similarly, the number of publications and percentage contributions of the remaining countries are as follows: New Zealand, 7 (7.3%); Denmark, 6 (6.3%); Spain and France, 5 (5.2%); Germany, 4.2%; Sweden and Italy, 3 (3.1%); and the Netherlands, Belgium, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, China, India, and Nigeria, 1 (1%). Thus, 57.3% of the publications concerning BEW in older adults were from the USA, the UK, Australia and Canada. The trend indicates that much research has to be undertaken on the BEW of older adults by the rest of the countries in this field in connection with the five theories of specific interest to this SLR. Figure 4. Country wise distribution of publications. The trend of publications on the BEW of older adults has consistently increased over time. According to the data provided, there are two publications in 2000 and 2001, followed by a small increase to three publications in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. After 2008, the number of publications started to rise significantly, reaching four publications in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 and peaking at eight publications in 2021. The trend continued in 2022, with ten publications, eleven in 2023, and it is reasonable to expect that the number will continue to grow. There could be several reasons why there was an increase in publications on BEW after 2018 ( Figure 5 ). First, as awareness of the importance of walkability for older adults grows, so does interest in studying and publishing research on this topic. Second, governments around the world have started to recognize the importance of walkability for older adults, leading to policy changes that may result in more research being conducted. Third, recent advances in technology, particularly in the areas of data analysis and spatial planning, have made it easier to conduct and publish research on BEW. Fourth, with the aging population, there is an increasing demand for research that addresses the needs of older adults. This has led to a surge in publications on topics related to the built environment and older adults. Thus, the increase in publications on BEW of older adults is likely due to a combination of growing awareness, policy changes, technological advancements, and an emerging research field dedicated to addressing the needs of older adults. Figure 5. Year wise distribution of publication frequency. Results of theory identification and frequency of use The AAF is the most highly discussed theory (35.4%) in the context of the BEW of older adults. While there could be many reasons for the choice of this theory, the main reason observed was that it focused mainly on physical activity and health promotion, making it a frequent choice for research on the outcomes of increased physical activity and improved quality of life among older adults (e.g., Davern et al., 2020 ; MacCarthy et al., 2023 ; Marquet et al., 2017 ). Given its broad applicability to health behaviors and the importance of social networks in influencing health behaviors, SEMHP (25%) might be frequently referenced in studies examining socialization and quality of life (e.g., Leung et al., 2021 ; Michael & Carlson, 2009 ; Silveira & Motl, 2019 ). The CEUDT is the third most common line (18%), as this theory specifically addresses the design process and community engagement; it is likely to be referenced in studies that consider the role of urban design and community participation in shaping walkable environments ( Kou et al., 2019 ; Fang et al., 2022 ; Rooks et al., 2022 ; Rupp et al., 2020 ). The fourth is NSET (11%) because this theory is focused on the social aspects of the environment, which could make it relevant to studies looking at the socialization aspect of BEW (e.g., Adkins et al., 2017 ; Koohsari et al., 2021 ; Leyden, 2003 ). EMA is the fifth (8%) theory used in the literature, while potentially influential, this theory might be less frequently referenced in BEW research than others are, as it deals more with the broader environmental and biological factors affecting aging rather than the specific built environment (e.g., Carlson et al., 2012 ; Rosso et al., 2021 ; Zheng & Yang, 2019 ) ( Figure 6 ). Figure 6. Share of theories in publications. Results and Analysis in the Publications Based on the research design characteristics ( Table 4 ), there are almost equal contributions in terms of the qualitative approach (41.7%) and quantitative approach (45.8%); however, very few mixed methods (12.5%) based on research studies exist ( Figure 7 ). Among the 44 quantitative studies, the majority used exploratory factor analysis (50%), followed by confirmatory factor analysis (36.4%), and the remaining were descriptive studies (13.6%). With respect to the sampling techniques used for quantitative methods, among the 44 papers, the majority of the studies were based on nonprobability sampling (68.2%), followed by probability sampling (27.3%), and in the remaining (4.5%), no sampling details were mentioned. The qualitative studies (N = 40) involved mainly focus group interviews (60%), followed by in-depth interviews (30%), and the remaining studies involved semistructured interviews (10%). Table 4. Research design characteristics of the studies. Research design characteristic Specification Number of articles Contribution 1. Research methods 1. Qualitative 40 41.7% (N=96) 2. Quantitative 44 45.8% 3. Mixed Methods 12 12.5% 2. Quantitative research 1. Exploratory factor analysis 22 50.0% (N=44) 2. Confirmatory factor analysis 16 36.4% 3. Descriptive studies 6 13.6% 3. Sampling techniques 1. Probability sampling 12 27.3% (N=44) 2. Nonprobability sampling 30 68.2% 3. Not mentioned 2 4.5% 4. Qualitative research 1. Focus group interview 24 60% (N=40) 2. In-depth interview 12 30% 3. Semi structured interview 4 10% Figure 7. Distribution of publications via the research approach. Results of the classification scheme The classification scheme, which has a bearing on RQ2 of this SLR, focuses on contribution type, research focus, and research type in connection. A total of 96 articles were reviewed, and by considering the number and types of theories reviewed and the research undertaken to date, the categorization could be the underpinning theories applicable to BEW of older adults based on the contribution type, various concepts were theorized based on the five theories, namely, the AAF, SEMHP, CEUDT, NSET, and EMA. The AAF (N=34) was the most widely used theory, the SEMHP (N=25) was the second most widely used theory, the third was the CEUDT (N=18), and the least used was the EMA (N=8), with the second least used being the NSET (11). Studies focused on Model Development (N=38), Model Testing (N=34), Model Advancement (N=16), and eight papers on Model Integration. Finally, in terms of research type, the highest number of papers were based on empirical research (N=36), followed by grounded theory (N=20), case studies (N=18), comparative studies (n=12), document analysis (N=08), and analytical research (N=02) ( Figure 8 ). Figure 8. Research focus map. Classification based on research focus The classification of the theoretical models is shown in Figure 9 based on the research focus. Figure 9. Distribution of studies by research focus. Model development Among the 38 papers on model development (accounting for 39.6% of the total papers) ( Figure 9 ), 14 papers were based on the AAF, 7 papers each on the SEMHP and CEUDT, 6 papers on the NSET, and 4 papers on the EMA ( Figure 8 ). Model testing Among the 34 papers on model testing (accounting for 35.4% of the total papers) ( Figure 9 ), 10 papers were based on the AAF, 12 papers each on the SEMHP, 7 papers on the CEUDT, 11 papers on the NSET, and 8 papers on the EMA ( Figure 8 ). Model advancement Among the 16 papers on model advancement (contributing to 16.7% of the total papers) ( Figure 9 ), 6 papers were based on AAF, 4 papers each on SEMHP, 3 papers on CEUDT, 1 paper on NSET, and 2 papers on EMA ( Figure 8 ). Model integration Among the 8 papers on model integration (contributing to an insignificant 8.3% of the total papers) ( Figure 9 ), 4 papers were based on AAF, 2 papers each on SEMHP, 1 paper on CEUDT, 1 paper on NSET, and no papers on EMA ( Figure 8 ). Classification based on research type Several different types of research have been reported in the literature on the ECS of agribusiness with respect to these four theories. The number of papers on these research types are as follows, and they are shown in Figure 10 . Figure 10. Distribution of papers by research type. Grounded theory There were 20 papers based on the grounded theory approach (20.8% of the total papers) ( Figure 10 ). These papers were distributed as follows: 06 each in model development, model testing , and model advancement and 2 papers in model integration ( Figure 8 ). Comparative study There were 12 papers based on the comparative study approach (12.5% of the total papers) ( Figure 10 ). These papers were distributed as follows: 06 involved model development, with 3 papers each for model testing and model advancement; however, there were no papers on mode integration ( Figure 8 ). Document analysis There were 8 papers (8.3% of the total papers) ( Figure 10 ) that used document analysis, of which 2 were in model development, 4 were in model testing, 2 were in model advancement, and there were no papers on model integration ( Figure 8 ). Analytical research There were 2 papers (1.1%) ( Figure 10 ) on analytical research, with 01 papers each in terms of model development and model testing. There were no papers on model advancement or model integration ( Figure 8 ). Empirical research This was the most commonly used research type in the literature. There were 36 papers (37.5%) ( Figure 10 ) in this category, among which 16 were on model development , 12 were on model testing , 2 were on model advancement, and 6 were on model integration ( Figure 8 ). Case study There were 18 papers in which case studies were adopted (18.8% of the total papers) ( Figure 10 ). Among these papers, 7 papers focused on model development , 8 papers focused on model testing, 3 papers focused on model advancement , and no papers focused on model integration ( Figure 8 ). To summarize, the research focus map provides the areas where there is a dearth of research literature and possibly the areas that may be explored by future researchers in the BEW of older adults using the five dominant theories under consideration. In terms of research focus and research contribution , model integration can be attempted in EMAs. Model advancement may be attempted via analytical research. Additionally, model integration may be explored via comparative studies, document analysis, analytical research , and case studies. This is based on the finding that there was no evidence of research in these contexts considering the 96 papers shortlisted for the SLR. Furthermore, it may also be noted that there are relatively few research studies on integrative model development in terms of research focus , and there is scope for research to apply the theories NSET and EMA based on the contribution type. Finally, in terms of the research type, there is an opportunity to explore analytical research and document analysis . At the same time, researchers may also note that the AAF and SEMHP have been considered to be the most relevant theories applicable to the BEW of older adults; hence, there is scope to undertake further research using these two theories to test the available models, advance the theories, and integrate these theories to gain newer insights into making the BEW of older adults contribute more to outcome achievement. Discussion The first research goal of this SLR was to identify the dominant theories that contributed to the body of knowledge in the BEW of older adults and how they can contribute to the future growth of research. In this context, the SLR conducted on the built environment for walkability of older adults revealed several dominant theories that significantly contributed to the body of knowledge in this field. The AAF emerged as the most widely used theory, with 35.4% of the total papers incorporating its principles. This framework emphasizes the importance of promoting physical activity and engagement among older adults to enhance their overall well-being ( Davern et al., 2020 ; MacCarthy et al., 2023 ). This underscores the notion that age should not be a barrier to leading an active and fulfilling life, advocating for environments that support opportunities for exercise and social interaction ( Marquet et al., 2017 ). The SEMHP, which featured 26% of the reviewed papers, followed closely behind the SEMHP. This model acknowledges the complex interplay between individual behavior, social dynamics, environmental factors, and policy influences on health outcomes ( Leung et al., 2021 ; Michael & Carlson, 2009 ). This underscores the need for multilevel interventions that address both individual choices and broader environmental determinants of health ( Golden & Earp, 2012 ; Silveira & Motl, 2019 ). Moreover, the CEUDT, highlighted in 18.8% of the papers, underscores the importance of involving older adults and local communities in the design and planning processes of urban spaces ( Rooks et al., 2022 ; Rupp et al., 2020 ). By actively engaging stakeholders, this approach ensures that the built environment aligns with the needs and preferences of its users, fostering a sense of ownership and belonging ( Kou et al., 2019 ; Fang et al., 2022 ). Additionally, the NSET (11.5%) emphasizes the role of social cohesion, support networks, and neighbourhood characteristics in shaping older adults’ walking behavior and overall health outcomes ( Adkins et al., 2017 ; Koohsari et al., 2021 ; Leyden, 2003 ). Finally, the EMA (8.3%) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the dynamic interactions between aging individuals and their environment, encompassing biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors ( Carlson et al., 2012 ; Rosso et al., 2021 ; Zheng & Yang, 2019 . These dominant theories collectively offer valuable insights into the complex dynamics of the built environment for older adults’ walkability, providing researchers and practitioners with conceptual frameworks to guide their investigations and interventions. The prominence of these theories not only enriches our understanding of the impact of the built environment on older adults’ walkability but also lays the groundwork for future research and practice in this area. By synthesizing and integrating insights from diverse theoretical perspectives, researchers can develop more nuanced and holistic approaches to address the complex challenges associated with aging populations and urban environments. For example, future studies could explore the synergistic effects of combining interventions informed by multiple theories, such as integrating elements of the active aging framework with principles of the social-ecological model of health promotion, to design age-friendly neighbourhoods that promote physical activity while addressing social determinants of health. Moreover, the widespread adoption of these theories underscores the interdisciplinary nature of research on the built environment and aging, highlighting the need for collaboration across fields such as urban planning, public health, gerontology, and sociology. By fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration, researchers can leverage diverse perspectives and expertise to develop innovative solutions that enhance the walkability and livability of urban environments for older adults ( Baobeid et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, the continued exploration and refinement of these theories can inform policy and practice initiatives aimed at creating age-friendly cities and communities that support healthy aging and active lifestyles for older adults, as emphasized by several researchers (e.g., Davern et al., 2020 ; John & Gunter, 2016 ). Thus, the dominance of these theories reflects a growing recognition of the importance of considering both individual and environmental factors in promoting healthy aging and underscores the potential for future research to contribute to the development of more inclusive and supportive built environments for older adults. The second research goal was to answer the current state of publication in terms of the database, specifically in terms of the type of research contribution, research focus, and research type. The systematic literature review reveals a diverse landscape of research contributions within the context of the built environment and walkability for older adults. The predominance of model development and testing papers underscores a concerted effort within the academic community to establish robust frameworks for understanding and assessing walkability in urban spaces. However, the relatively lower proportion of papers focusing on model advancement and integration suggests a potential gap in the literature where more emphasis could be placed on refining existing models and synthesizing different approaches to offer comprehensive insights. Furthermore, the distribution of research types highlights a variety of methodological approaches employed, with grounded theory and case studies being prominent. While these approaches offer valuable qualitative and context-specific insights, there is room for increased utilization of other research types, such as longitudinal studies or mixed-methods approaches, to enrich the understanding of walkability and its impact on older adults’ mobility and well-being. Future research in this domain could benefit from interdisciplinary collaborations to address the complexity of built environment interventions for enhancing walkability among older adults. Additionally, there is an opportunity for more comparative studies to explore variations in walkability interventions across different geographical contexts and cultural settings. The third research goal was to identify the phase of model development/testing/advancement/integration in this area and identify the possible research gaps that need to be addressed. The SLR reveals a diverse landscape of research contributions within the context of the built environment and walkability for older adults. The predominance of model development and testing papers underscores a concerted effort within the academic community to establish robust frameworks for understanding and assessing walkability in urban spaces. However, the relatively lower proportion of papers focusing on model advancement and integration suggests a potential gap in the literature where more emphasis could be placed on refining existing models and synthesizing different approaches to offer comprehensive insights. Furthermore, the distribution of research types highlights a variety of methodological approaches employed, with grounded theory and case studies being prominent. While these approaches offer valuable qualitative and context-specific insights, there is room for increased utilization of other research types, such as longitudinal studies or mixed-methods approaches, to enrich the understanding of walkability and its impact on older adults’ mobility and well-being. Future research in this domain could benefit from interdisciplinary collaborations to address the complexity of built environment interventions for enhancing walkability among older adults, as emphasized by several recent researchers (e.g., de Castro et al., 2024 ; Olorunsogo et al., 2024 ; Smarr et al., 2024 ). Integrating insights from urban planning, public health, gerontology, and other relevant disciplines can foster holistic approaches that consider not only physical infrastructure but also social, psychological, and policy dimensions influencing walkability ( Shealy et al., 2024 ; Sundling & Jakobsson, 2023 ). Additionally, there is an opportunity for more comparative studies to explore variations in walkability interventions across different geographical contexts and cultural settings ( Annear et al., 2024 ). Leveraging emerging technologies such as geographic information systems (GISs) and wearable sensors could also enable more dynamic and fine-grained assessments of walkability, offering real-time feedback and personalized recommendations for older adults ( Emish et al., 2023 ; Ng et al., 2023 ). Thus, there is scope of exploring different research methodologies and fostering interdisciplinary collaborations, and future studies can contribute to more nuanced understandings of walkability in the built environment and inform targeted interventions to promote healthy aging and active lifestyles among older adults. The fourth research goal was to suggest an appropriate strategy to carry out future research on this topic based on the answers obtained to the previous questions. Drawing from the insights gleaned from this SLR on the BEW of older adults in urban settings, a multifaceted strategy for future research emerges. First, there is a pressing need for longitudinal studies that track the effectiveness of walkability interventions over time, capturing not only short-term outcomes but also long-term impacts on older adults’ mobility, social connectedness, and overall well-being, which has also been suggested by earlier researchers (e.g., Cheranchery et al., 2024 ; Kestens et al., 2019 ). These studies could employ mixed-method approaches, combining quantitative assessments of built environment features with qualitative insights from older adults themselves, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between physical infrastructure, social dynamics, and individual behavior. Furthermore, integrating advanced data analytics and machine learning techniques could enable predictive modelling of walkability outcomes, allowing researchers and policymakers to anticipate future trends and tailor interventions accordingly. Future research should prioritize interdisciplinary collaborations to address the multifaceted nature of walkability in urban environments. Engaging urban planners, architects, public health experts, gerontologists, and community stakeholders can foster holistic approaches that consider not only the physical design of spaces but also the social, cultural, and policy factors influencing older adults’ walking behavior ( Litt et al., 2024 ; Üzümcüogğlu & Polay, 2024 ). This interdisciplinary approach could involve participatory design processes, where older adults are actively involved in cocreating walkable environments that meet their diverse needs and preferences. Additionally, leveraging emerging technologies such as virtual reality simulations and smart sensors can facilitate community engagement and empower older adults to provide real-time feedback on the usability and safety of pedestrian infrastructure ( De Wolf & Bocken, 2024 ). By fostering collaboration across disciplines and embracing innovative methodologies, future research endeavors can pave the way for more inclusive, age-friendly urban environments that promote active aging and enhance the quality of life of older adults. Conclusion This SLR originated from four basic research questions related to the exploration of BEW in older adults. The SLR has provided valuable insights into the current state of BEW research concerning older adults in urban settings. The findings underscore the importance of understanding and enhancing walkability as a crucial component of promoting active aging and improving the quality of life of older adults. The predominance of papers focusing on model development and testing highlights a concerted effort within the academic community to establish comprehensive frameworks for assessing walkability in urban environments. However, the relatively few papers addressing model advancement and integration suggest opportunities for further research to refine existing models and synthesize different approaches for a more nuanced understanding of walkability factors. Moreover, the diverse array of research types employed, including grounded theory, comparative studies, case studies, empirical research, and analytical research, reflects the multidisciplinary nature of investigating walkability in the built environment. This diversity underscores the importance of employing a variety of methodological approaches to capture the complex interplay between physical infrastructure, social dynamics, and individual behaviors shaping walkability outcomes. Moving forward, future research endeavors may aim to integrate insights from various disciplines and methodologies to provide holistic understandings of walkability and inform targeted interventions tailored to the diverse needs of older adults in urban settings. Furthermore, longitudinal studies that track the effectiveness of walkability interventions over time and assess their long-term impacts on older adults’ mobility and well-being are needed. These studies may utilize mixed-method approaches, combining quantitative assessments of built environment features with qualitative insights from older adults themselves, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics influencing walkability outcomes. Additionally, interdisciplinary collaborations involving urban planners, public health experts, gerontologists, and community stakeholders are essential for cocreating age-friendly urban environments that promote active ageing and social inclusion. Embracing innovative technologies and participatory design processes can empower older adults to actively engage in shaping their living environments, ultimately fostering healthier, more walkable cities for all residents. Despite the comprehensive scope of the systematic literature review on the BEW of older adults in urban settings, certain limitations must be acknowledged. First, the review’s reliance on existing published literature may introduce potential publication bias, as it may overlook unpublished studies or those published in languages other than English. The entire SLR is based on the four dominant theories widely used in the BEW of older adults, which may deprive the opportunity to obtain some key revelations and insight stimulating examples that could be obtained from other theories, such as social cognitive theory, the theory of planned behavior, the health belief model, social support theory, and place attachment theory. Additionally, while efforts have been made to ensure a systematic and exhaustive search strategy, there remains a possibility of missing relevant studies due to variations in indexing terms or database coverage. Moreover, the review focused primarily on quantitative and qualitative research articles, potentially excluding valuable insights from other forms of literature, such as gray literature, conference proceedings, or policy documents. Finally, while the review identified key themes and trends in the literature, the synthesis of findings may be limited by variations in study methodologies, sample populations, and geographic contexts across the included studies. Despite these limitations, the SLR provides a valuable synthesis of existing knowledge and serves as a foundation for future research directions in the fields of walkability and urban aging. In today’s urbanizing world where the needs of older adults are increasingly paramount, this SLR serves as a beacon for both academics and practitioners alike. By illuminating key themes and trends in the research on the BEW of older adults, this review not only advances scholarly discourse but also provides actionable insights for practitioners tasked with creating age-friendly smart cities. Its timeliness is not crucial, as societies worldwide are faced with the challenges of population aging and urbanization. With this comprehensive understanding of the current state of BEW research, stakeholders can collaboratively forge paths toward inclusive, walkable environments that promote healthy aging and foster vibrant, livable communities for generations to come. Ethics and consent Ethical approval and consent were not required. Data availability No data are associated with this article. Extended data Figshare: “Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: a systematic literature review” ( Rao, A., & Nandineni, R. D., 2025d ). This project contains the following extended data: • PRISMA Flow chart - 10.6084/m9.figshare.28279499 ( Rao, A., & Nandineni, R. D., 2025a ). • List of Figures: 10.6084/m9.figshare.28280486 ( Rao, A., & Nandineni, R. D., 2025b ). • Data extraction sheet: 10.6084/m9.figshare.28279466 ( Rao, A., & Nandineni, R. D., 2025c ). • PRISMA Checklist: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28280621 ( Rao, A., & Nandineni, R. D., 2025d ). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Reporting guidelines Figshare: PRISMA checklist for “Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: a systematic literature review” Doi: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28280621 ( Rao, A., & Nandineni, R. D., 2025d ). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). References Adkins A, Makarewicz C, Scanze M, et al. : Contextualizing walkability: do relationships between built environments and walking vary by socioeconomic context? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2017; 83 (3): 296–314. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Annear M, Fristedt S, Laddawong T: Walkability in Japan’s aging neighborhoods: A comparative audit analysis of pedestrian journeys in urban Tokyo. J. Transp. Health. 2024; 35 : 101755. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Baobeid A, Koç M, Al-Ghamdi SG: Walkability and its relationships with health, sustainability, and livability: elements of physical environment and evaluation frameworks. Front. Built. Environ. 2021; 7 : 721218. Publisher Full Text Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D: On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews. Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems. 2015; 2 : 48–78. Publisher Full Text Caporali R, Conti F, Iannone F: Management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases after treatment failure with a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: A narrative review. Mod. Rheumatol. 2024; 34 (1): 11–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Carlson JA, Sallis JF, Conway TL, et al. : Interactions between psychosocial and built environment factors in explaining older adults’ physical activity. Prev. Med. 2012; 54 (1): 68–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Cheranchery MF, Krishnan MG, Alfiya AA, et al. : A user perception based approach to derive policy intervention areas for enhancing walkability of cities: Experience in Kerala, India. Transp. Policy. 2024; 147 : 70–80. Publisher Full Text Cipriani A, Geddes J: Comparison of systematic and narrative reviews: the example of the atypical antipsychotics. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2003; 12 (3): 146–153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Danese P, Manfè V, Romano P: A systematic literature review on recent lean research: state-of-the-art and future directions. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018; 20 (2): 579–605. Publisher Full Text Davern M, Winterton R, Brasher K, et al. : How can the lived environment support healthy ageing? A spatial indicators framework for the assessment of age-friendly communities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17 (20): 7685. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text de Castro MAS , Valencio N, Iossifova D, et al. : An Experiment in Transdisciplinary Systems Mapping: Architecture and the Water–Energy–Sanitation Nexus in Brazil. Architecture. 2024; 4 (1): 73–88. Publisher Full Text De Wolf C, Bocken N: Digital Transformation of the Built Environment Towards a Regenerative Future. A Circular Built Environment in the Digital Age. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2024; pp. 259–275. Publisher Full Text Emish M, Kelani Z, Hassani M, et al. : A mobile health application using Geolocation for behavioral activity tracking. Sensors. 2023; 23 (18): 7917. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Fang ML, Sixsmith J, Canham SL, et al. : Aging in the right place: Participatory and community mapping for collaborative working and knowledge cocreation. Handbook of Social Inclusion: Research and Practices in Health and Social Sciences. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022; pp. 1255–1275. Publisher Full Text Ferrari R: Writing narrative style literature reviews. Med. Writ. 2015; 24 (4): 230–235. Publisher Full Text Golden SD, Earp JAL: Social ecological approaches to individuals and their contexts: twenty years of health education & behavior health promotion interventions. Health Educ. Behav. 2012; 39 (3): 364–372. Publisher Full Text Hijriyah L, Alias A, Mohd Sahabuddin MF: Exploring walkability research trends based on systematic literature review (SLR) by applying PRISMA. Open House Int. 2024; 49 (1): 63–121. Publisher Full Text John DH, Gunter K: engAGE in community: Using mixed methods to mobilize older people to elucidate the age-friendly attributes of urban and rural places. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2016; 35 (10): 1095–1120. Publisher Full Text Kestens Y, Winters M, Fuller D, et al. : INTERACT: A comprehensive approach to assess urban form interventions through natural experiments. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19 : 11–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Koohsari MJ, Nakaya T, McCormack GR, et al. : Traditional and novel walkable built environment metrics and social capital. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021; 214 : 104184. Publisher Full Text Kou H, Zhang S, Liu Y: Community-engaged research for the promotion of healthy urban environments: A case study of community garden initiative in Shanghai, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019; 16 (21): 4145. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Leung KM, Ou KL, Chung PK, et al. : Older adults’ perceptions toward walking: A qualitative study using a social-ecological model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18 (14): 7686. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Leyden KM: Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. Am. J. Public Health. 2003; 93 (9): 1546–1551. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Litt JS, Coll-Planas L, Sachs AL, et al. : Nature-based social interventions for people experiencing loneliness: the rationale and overview of the RECETAS project. Cities Health. 2024; 8 : 418–431. Publisher Full Text MacCarthy D, Silva C, Adlakha D: Assessing the Person-Environment Fit Framework for Active Ageing. The Empathic City: An Urban Health and Wellbeing Perspective. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2023; pp. 21–40. Publisher Full Text Marquet O, Hipp JA, Miralles-Guasch C: Neighborhood walkability and active ageing: A difference in differences assessment of active transportation over ten years. J. Transp. Health. 2017; 7 : 190–201. Publisher Full Text Michael YL, Carlson NE: Analysis of individual social-ecological mediators and moderators and their ability to explain effect of a randomized neighborhood walking intervention. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2009; 6 : 1–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Ng HR, Zhong X, Nam Y, et al. : Deep-Learning-Based Approach for Automated Detection of Irregular Walking Surfaces for Walkability Assessment with Wearable Sensor. Appl. Sci. 2023; 13 (24): 13053. Publisher Full Text Olorunsogo TO, Ogugua JO, Muonde M, et al. : Environmental factors in public health: A review of global challenges and solutions. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 2024; 21 (1): 1453–1466. Publisher Full Text Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. : Scoping reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. 2017; 2015 : 1–24. Publisher Full Text Rao A, Nandineni RD: PRISMA flow chart -Systematic Review (Version 1). figshare. 2025a. Publisher Full Text Rao A, Nandineni RD: List of figures (Version 1). figshare. 2025b. Publisher Full Text Rao A, Nandineni RD: Data extraction sheet (Version 1). figshare. 2025c. Publisher Full Text Rao A, Nandineni RD: PRISMA_2020_checklist (Version 1). figshare. 2025d. Publisher Full Text Rooks RN, McCarthy S, Graybeal B, et al. : Community-engaged research on social capital and older adults’ health: Lessons learned. Gateways. 2022; 15 (1): 1–16. Publisher Full Text Rosso AL, Harding AB, Clarke PJ, et al. : Associations of neighborhood walkability and walking behaviors by cognitive trajectory in older adults. Gerontologist. 2021; 61 (7): 1053–1061. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Rupp LA, Zimmerman MA, Sly KW, et al. : Community-engaged neighborhood revitalization and empowerment: Busy streets theory in action. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2020; 65 (1-2): 90–106. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Shealy EC, Teaster PB, Pearce A, et al. : Motivations behind dog walking in older adults: insights from guided walks and interviews. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2024; 43 (3): 310–318. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Silveira SL, Motl RW: Environmental correlates of health-promoting leisure physical activity in persons with multiple sclerosis using a social cognitive perspective embedded within social ecological model. Prev. Med. Rep. 2019; 15 : 100921. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Smarr MM, Avakian M, Lopez AR, et al. : Broadening the Environmental Lens to Include Social and Structural Determinants of Women’s Health Disparities. Environ. Health Perspect. 2024; 132 (1): 15002. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Sundling C, Jakobsson M: How Do Urban Walking Environments Impact Pedestrians’ Experience and Psychological Health? A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2023; 15 (14): 10817. Publisher Full Text Takahashi PY, Baker MA, Cha S, et al. : A cross-sectional survey of the relationship between walking, biking, and the built environment for adults aged over 70 years. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy. 2012; 5 : 35–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Üzümcüogğlu D, Polay M: Critical Evaluation: An Assessment Tool for Fostering a Creative Environment at Kyrenia Waterfront. SAGE Open. 2024; 14 (1): 21582440241227350. Publisher Full Text Van Dyck D, Cerin E, Conway TL, et al. : Perceived neighborhood environmental attributes associated with adults’ leisure-time physical activity: Findings from Belgium, Australia and the USA. Health Place. 2013; 19 : 59–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Wang J, Kwan MP, Xiu G, et al. : Investigating the neighborhood effect averaging problem (NEAP) in greenspace exposure: A study in Beijing. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2024; 243 : 104970. Publisher Full Text Winters M, Barnes R, Venners S, et al. : Older adults’ outdoor walking and the built environment: does income matter? BMC Public Health. 2015; 15 : 876–878. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Wood GE, Pykett J, Stathi A: Active and healthy ageing in urban environments: laying the groundwork for solution-building through citizen science. Health Promot. Int. 2022; 37 (4): daac126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Xia B, Chen Q, Buys L, et al. : Impact of the Built Environment on Ageing in Place: A Systematic Overview of Reviews. Buildings. 2024; 14 (8): 2355. Publisher Full Text Xiao Y, Watson M: Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019; 39 (1): 93–112. Publisher Full Text Yang M, Yaman R, Ismail FZ: Age-inclusive urban design: A review of sustainable retrofit strategies for elderly well-being. J. Infras. Policy. Dev. 2024; 8 (5): 3797. Publisher Full Text Zheng Z, Yang L: Neighborhood environment, lifestyle, and health of older adults: Comparison of age groups based on ecological model of aging. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (7): 2077. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 24 Feb 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Manipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India 2 Manipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India Akshatha Rao Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Rama Devi Nandineni Roles: Data Curation, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 14 Feb 2026, 14:229 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161255.2 version 1 Published: 24 Feb 2025, 14:229 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161255.1 Copyright © 2025 Rao A and Nandineni RD. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Rao A and Nandineni RD. Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161255.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Feb 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Waygood EOD. Reviewer Report For: Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177260.r407275 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1#referee-response-407275 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 04 Sep 2025 E. Owen D. Waygood , Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, Canada Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177260.r407275 The title and objective of the review are not coherent with the paper outcomes. The review examines the extent to which pre-determined theories have been applied and what general approaches they have used. It states recommendations that are not demonstrated ... Continue reading READ ALL The title and objective of the review are not coherent with the paper outcomes. The review examines the extent to which pre-determined theories have been applied and what general approaches they have used. It states recommendations that are not demonstrated in the review. The review would need a complete overhaul to be publishable. If the objective is to examine the use of those theories and their comparison, than it should do that in a systematic way. What is studied (outcome)? What is used to explain that outcome (explanatory variables)? What techniques are used to measure the outcome and explanatory variables? There are many questions that could be examined to support what is stated in the future directions and conclusions. As the paper stands, it is not publishable I'm afraid. Here are my detailed comments: Abstract I’m not sure if you used the journal’s template, but I would make the objective a separate section. The results do not seem to correspond to the objective “Examining various theories, it analyses themes like safety, security, comfort, convenience, aesthetics, governance, and policy frameworks . B y critically reviewing the literature, it seeks to understand current research trends and suggest future directions.” The current results are simply a summary of theories that were applied and the type of the study. The findings of this research and the trends that they identify are not clear to me. The Conclusion states that we could combine the two most relevant theories, but it is not clear what those are or how it was determined that they are the relevant ones. “ In the introduction, it is crucial to underscore the importance of conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) as opposed to other types of literature reviews.” This seems like guidance to someone when writing a paper. I don’t think you need this sentence. The discussion of SLR would be more appropriate in the methods. Only the last sentence seems relevant for the introduction. I don’t feel that the research gap is clearly established. What has previous research done and what is the gap that you can propose exists? “most importantly, theories applicable to the BEW of older adults and identify gaps in knowledge to inform future research directions and policy interventions.” Why is this the most important part? There is no argument presented for this. Method I recognize that what I may look for from such a review is different, but I feel like a key outcome of a systematic review is to see what we know rather than what theories and what types of studies have been done. For me, that would be secondary – a means to understand the findings and then identify limitations and gaps. “the identification of the theories that influence the BEWof older adults” The theories that would influence the BEW would be how the planners are thinking, but I’m sure that this is what you are looking at. It seems more about the thinking of academics, who do not directly influence the built environment. Identifying key words. If the objective is to identify what theories were used for BEW of older adults, why are you already proposing theories? This seems like a way to simply confirm that those are theories that are (or are not) used. This approach seems to bias the diversity of theories that you would find. “five theories have a dominant influence” How is this demonstrated or established? Did a previous (and more open) research review on BEW of older adults find that? It is not clear how the years of influence of the different theories are established. It seems like you are deciding ahead of time the range of years of influence without demonstrating from the literature that those ideas started to be applied at certain times. Search terms The terms “walkability” and “pedestrian friendly” are a newish terms, but I suspect that people discussed those ideas before the terms existed. Might a more general term such as “walk*” or pedestrian allow for relevant concepts to be identified, especially as relates to older literature on the subject? It’s not clear to me why you have used a search strategy that is based on a set number of theories if you want to see what theories are used. Why haven’t you simply searched the literature on BEW of older adults, and then identify what theories were used? It would be useful if mention in the paper that you are applying PRISMA to report the details of your methodology. “ dealt exclusively with the comparison of two or more theories,” This is the first time that such a criterion is mentioned. Why must the research compare two or more theories? You have not given any argument for why this is a criterion of inclusion. “ evaluated a hypothetical model by providing linkages to the core model and” It is not clear to me exactly what you mean by this. Do you mean, “evaluated the results by applying a theory/framework/model”? “ criticized, proposed new solutions, and presented new/extended/hybridized models or theories to develop contemporary models of BEW.” Again, it is not clear to me why a paper must present a new/extended/hybridized model to be included. “ approached challenges and issues related to BEW development” It is not clear to me why this is an exclusion criterion. Do mean, “made no empirical examination of walking outcomes based on BEW”? It is not clear ot me how these are different from “View-point” articles. Quality assessment It is not clear to me what the quality criteria were. Research focus This section should be at the start of this paper. Finally it is saying what previous work has done and gets at some of the gaps. Also, a clear definition of each of these terms (model development/testing/advancement/integration) must be given, otherwise it is not clear how you decide how a paper should be categorized. “ The focus was on understanding the relationships between these factors and the outcomes associated with increased physical activity, enhanced socialization, and improved quality of life for older adults.” This is the first time that I had any idea about what impacts of the BEW on older adults that you might be considering. If you are examining this, make it clear from the start. Both “quality of life” and “well-being” are used. Are you considering these terms interchangeable? A description of each should be given. “ These studies have demonstrated the significance of model testing in understanding the impact of the built environment on older adults’ walking habits and the influence of various factors on their physical activity levels and social interactions.” Perhaps I’m not understanding what you are getting at, but the section simply lists a few findings. It’s not evident what you mean by model testing. I think you mean to statistically test a model/theory of BEW on older adults walking outcomes. Model advancement: The advancement of models is not really evident to me here. It is talking about different methods used in studies. Model integration “ well-being and lifestyle of older adults” Now, lifestyle has been mentioned, but not defined. It is not clear to me how this paragraph relates to model integration. It seems to be repeating the same approach as the previous paragraphs of mentioning a few studies that used a theory and a research approach. The purpose or idea behind “model integration” needs to be clearly stated. “ older adults who adopt the CEUDT” Do you mean studies that adopt the CEUDT to study BEW of older adults? The findings seem to be just a description of what the theory aims to examine. This type of description should be in the introduction if the purpose of this review is to examine its application in research – are there different findings as opposed to the other theories? Do they refute the others or simply add additional considerations? The same could be said for the following paragraphs. I feel like findings on what they used for those different considerations would be an important addition. Do they use different measures to consider the individual, the household, the neighborhood? Do they use different measures to examine outcomes? How do the models relate and how do they differ? The subtle differences between EMA and SEMHP could be highlighted. “ Analysing the publication trend based on various indexing agencies reveals distinct patterns in the dissemination of research on the BEW of older adults.” I’m not sure of the value of this paragraph. Is it important where they are indexed? “ Thus, the increase in publications on BEWof older adults is likely due to a combination of growing awareness, policy changes, technological advancements, and an emerging research field dedicated to addressing the needs of older adults.” I might propose a different possibility: that baby-boomers, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon countries that have published the most, are car dependent but are now getting much older. As a large part of the population, their needs are often a large influence on policies and research funding. Results of theory identification and frequency of use Different theories are often more or less prominent in different fields of studies. Different fields of studies have varying levels of funding and approaches to scientific paper writing. If a theory is used in health sciences (where much more research money is available), they might produce more – this is not evidence of greater importance, but might just be an anecdote of how that field examines the issue. In terms of sampling, will there be a discussion on the implications of mostly using non-probability sampling? Discussion Paragraph starting, “ The AAF emerged as the most widely used theory, with 35.4% of the total papers incorporating its principles.” I’m not sure of the value of this paragraph. It is stating what those different theories aim to do. As these theories were pre-selected, the reason for selecting only papers that relate to them would include the description of their objectives where are given in this paragraph. I don’t see what is new other than to say, “if we only search for papers using these theories, then we find X theory represents Y % of those papers.” “ The systematic literature review reveals a diverse landscape of research contributions within the context of the built environment and walkability for older adults.” I’m not sure that I agree. It is not really clear to me what the research contributions are of the papers that were found other than to say they applied a theory and there were some findings. A clear synthesis of those finds was presented such as a table that says, “tested for X factor” and then if it was found to be statistically significant or not, or in the case of qualitative work, whether people mentioned it as an influencing factor. The qualitative work might identify influences that have not yet been tested empirically. “ Additionally, there is an opportunity for more comparative studies to explore variations in walkability interventions across different geographical contexts and cultural settings.” This is certainly a point to emphasize. The literature is dominated by Anglo-Saxon cultures and built environments, which are more the exception than the norm globally. “ there is an opportunity for more comparative studies to explore variations in walkability interventions across different geographical contexts and cultural settings” OK, but give arguments as to why this is important. “ Leveraging emerging technologies such as geographic information systems (GISs) and wearable sensors could also enable more dynamic and fine-grained assessments of walkability, offering real-time feedback and personalized recommendations for older adults” OK, but it is not clear from your review how people captured data on walking or such. Also, every method has advantages and disadvantages and those should be acknowledged. The aspect of interdisciplinary research is mentioned, but again, we don’t know the state of interdisciplinary research in the reviewed articles as this is not reported. The review sought to examine trends, which are changes over time, but it only summarized the frequency of models. It didn’t who what the frequency of the application of those models over time was. The abstract stated that the review would examine: safety, security, comfort, convenience, aesthetics, governance, and policy frameworks. I did not see any synthesis or examination of those. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? No Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? No If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Travel behaviour; transport and health; built environment influences on behavioural outcomes; I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Waygood EOD. Reviewer Report For: Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177260.r407275 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1#referee-response-407275 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Merlin LA. Reviewer Report For: Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177260.r369024 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1#referee-response-369024 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 26 Mar 2025 Louis A Merlin , Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177260.r369024 This systematic literature review examines theoretical approaches to supportive environments for walking for older adults. The authors’ approach to a systematic literature review is well documented, but confusing in some aspects. For example, the authors claim in ... Continue reading READ ALL This systematic literature review examines theoretical approaches to supportive environments for walking for older adults. The authors’ approach to a systematic literature review is well documented, but confusing in some aspects. For example, the authors claim in the abstract to review themes such as safety, security, comfort, and convenience, but these terms and concepts are almost entirely absent from the paper. The authors’ literature review framework is reasonable, in that they review papers with respect to the conceptual model employed, the research focus, and the research type, and they summarize the reviewed papers according to these dimensions. Yet many aspects of the review as written remain unclear or inadequately analyzed. This critique will start with big-picture issues and then delve into some more nuanced potential refinements. First, the framework of “BEW” or “Built Environment for Walking” seems to be inconsistent with what the authors find and discuss. The authors mention the importance of social environments and policy dynamics, so from the start the frame should be drawn much larger than the built environment. Perhaps built and social environments? The other term the authors use is “antecedents” which might be a good term, but if so the authors should use it more consistently and define it clearly. The term “antecedents” does not occur in any of the stated research questions. The authors’ abstract suggests a comprehensive literature review of how urban design influences walking access and behavior for older adults. However, the authors have heavily focused on theoretical frameworks in their literature search, possibly filtering out empirical papers that are light on theory. I believe the authors’ contribution is still valuable, but the abstract should more accurately indicate the scope of the literature review conducted. Systematic literature reviews generally include an evaluation of research quality. However, conventional evaluation criteria for research quality typically concern on quantitative analysis methods, such as research design, the presence of confounders, the use of blinding, the validation of data collection methods, and so forth (Ravensbergen and El-Geneidy, 2023) [Ref-1]. The authors are quite vague on their methods of evaluation for research quality. I would suggest that with the authors’ topical focus being on theoretical approaches and contributions, evaluation of research quality may not be relevant. The authors mention that both “contribution type” and “research focus” are of interest. However, there is no description of different categories of contribution type. Are “contribution type” and “research focus” the same? At the bottom of page 8 the heading is “Contribution type” with no discussion of what this means. Then the following section is on “Research Focus” and identifies four types: 1) Model Development, 2) Model Testing, 3) Model Advancing, and 4) Model Integration. So it seems that a discussion of “Contribution Type” is missing or is perhaps synonymous with with “Research Focus.” I found the section on the four different “Research Focuses” to be problematic. The four focuses, as I understand them, are Model Development, Model Testing, Model Advancement, and Model Integration.” After reading this section, I am still unclear on the differences. This section reads more like a miniature literature review rather than a conceptual section that defines what makes each of these foci different from each other. I am expecting to read brief definitions with perhaps one example. The goal should be for the reader to be able to tell when a paper falls in one category versus the other. After reading this section, I had no idea how a paper would be categorized into one of these foci. In the results section on pages 11-12, the authors describe the different theories and characterize the publications falling under each theory type. What struck me is how similar the descriptions of the differing theories sounded. Several of them were described as “holistic” and several mentioned the effects of social, environmental, and individual factors on walking behaviors. Could the authors develop a framework that allows the reader to see the differences between these theoretical frameworks? Which frameworks cover topics or issues that are not covered by the others? The lengthy paragraph on how far back the literature review should go back was not informative and lacked an empirical basis. For example, the claim “The SEMHP has had an ideal period of impact during the last 15-20 years” is not substantiated by data or a citation. The authors could establish a conventional time frame for their search (i.e. 20 years or 30 years) without including this paragraph. Or they could provide more evidence to support the claims in this paragraph. The description of search terms that occurs in the second paragraph of page 5 does not correspond with the search terms actually employed in Table 1. The paragraph mentions the terms “safety,” “comfort” and “convenience” but none of these terms occur in Table 1. Meanwhile, Table 1 includes many search terms, such as “Walkability,” “Older Adults” and “Physical Activity” that are not described in the narrative. The authors should re-write this section to correspond to the searches that were actually conducted, and the narrative and the table should correspond closely to each other. Several of the exclusion criteria do not seem to be necessary for exclusion. “Approached challenges and issues related to BEW development.” “Qualitatively discussed BEW concerning historical and current scenarios across various contexts, including sectoral, regional, national, international, etc.” Why would these be exclusion criteria? This is not obvious. With regard to Research Types, I am not clear on how Empirical Research is different from Analytical Research. Both seem to be empirical and statistical in nature. The discussion section is repetitive. The authors mention several times the potential benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need for more model advancement and model integration. This section can be condensed. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable References 1. Ravensbergen L, El-Geneidy A: Toward Evidence-Based Urban Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association . 2023; 89 (3): 389-398 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Travel Behavior, Urban Form, Pedestrians I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Merlin LA. Reviewer Report For: Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177260.r369024 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1#referee-response-369024 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 14 Feb 2026 Akshatha Rao , Manipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 14 Feb 2026 Author Response We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback. The comments have been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, scope, and methodological transparency of the manuscript. All suggested ... Continue reading We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback. The comments have been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, scope, and methodological transparency of the manuscript. All suggested revisions have been carefully incorporated. Our responses to each concern are provided below. This systematic literature review examines theoretical approaches to supportive environments for walking for older adults. Response: Thank you for the acknowledgement. The manuscript continues to retain this core objective, and subsequent revisions have aimed to enhance clarity in how theoretical approaches and supportive environments are framed and analyzed. 2. The authors’ approach to a systematic literature review is well documented, but confusing in some aspects. For example, the authors claim in the abstract to review themes such as safety, security, comfort, and convenience, but these terms and concepts are almost entirely absent from the paper. Response: This concern has been addressed by explicitly integrating the themes of safety, security, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics into the Introduction, Methods, Keywords, and Search Strategy sections. These dimensions are now consistently reflected in the manuscript narrative and in Table 1 to ensure alignment between the abstract and the main body of the paper. 3. The authors’ literature review framework is reasonable, in that they review papers with respect to the conceptual model employed, the research focus, and the research type, and they summarize the reviewed papers according to these dimensions. Yet many aspects of the review as written remain unclear or inadequately analyzed. Response: We appreciate this observation. Several sections, particularly the Research Focus, Quality Assessment, and Discussion , have been revised to improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and strengthen analytical depth. Definitions and structural explanations have been added where ambiguity previously existed. 4. This critique will start with big-picture issues and then delve into some more nuanced potential refinements. First, the framework of “BEW” or “Built Environment for Walking” seems to be inconsistent with what the authors find and discuss. The authors mention the importance of social environments and policy dynamics, so from the start the frame should be drawn much larger than the built environment. Perhaps built and social environments? The other term the authors use is “antecedents” which might be a good term, but if so the authors should use it more consistently and define it clearly. The term “antecedents” does not occur in any of the stated research questions. Response: The Introduction has been revised to define Built Environment for Walking (BEW) as an umbrella construct that includes physical, social, and policy-level dimensions . The term “antecedents” has now been clearly defined and explicitly incorporated into the research questions to ensure conceptual consistency throughout the manuscript. 5. The authors’ abstract suggests a comprehensive literature review of how urban design influences walking access and behavior for older adults. However, the authors have heavily focused on theoretical frameworks in their literature search, possibly filtering out empirical papers that are light on theory. I believe the authors’ contribution is still valuable, but the abstract should more accurately indicate the scope of the literature review conducted. Response: The abstract has been rewritten to more accurately reflect the manuscript’s emphasis on theoretical frameworks and conceptual models rather than a purely empirical urban design review. This ensures alignment between the stated scope and the actual methodological focus. 6. Systematic literature reviews generally include an evaluation of research quality. However, conventional evaluation criteria for research quality typically concern on quantitative analysis methods, such as research design, the presence of confounders, the use of blinding, the validation of data collection methods, and so forth (Ravensbergen and El-Geneidy, 2023) [Ref-1]. The authors are quite vague on their methods of evaluation for research quality. I would suggest that with the authors’ topical focus being on theoretical approaches and contributions, evaluation of research quality may not be relevant. Response: The Quality Assessment subsection has been clarified to explain that, due to the theoretical orientation of the review, quality evaluation emphasized conceptual clarity, theoretical relevance, and methodological transparency rather than statistical rigor alone. This aligns the evaluation criteria with the study’s objectives. 7. The authors mention that both “contribution type” and “research focus” are of interest. However, there is no description of different categories of contribution type. Are “contribution type” and “research focus” the same? At the bottom of page 8 the heading is “Contribution type” with no discussion of what this means. Then the following section is on “Research Focus” and identifies four types: 1) Model Development, 2) Model Testing, 3) Model Advancing, and 4) Model Integration. So it seems that a discussion of “Contribution Type” is missing or is perhaps synonymous with with “Research Focus.” Response: The manuscript has been revised to clarify that Research Focus represents the primary analytical classification, while “Contribution Type” is used descriptively rather than as a separate analytical category. Redundant or ambiguous headings have been refined to avoid conceptual overlap. 8. I found the section on the four different “Research Focuses” to be problematic. The four focuses, as I understand them, are Model Development, Model Testing, Model Advancement, and Model Integration.” After reading this section, I am still unclear on the differences. This section reads more like a miniature literature review rather than a conceptual section that defines what makes each of these foci different from each other. I am expecting to read brief definitions with perhaps one example. The goal should be for the reader to be able to tell when a paper falls in one category versus the other. After reading this section, I had no idea how a paper would be categorized into one of these foci. Response: Each research focus category (Model Development, Testing, Advancement, Integration) now begins with a concise conceptual definition before examples are presented. This restructuring improves reader comprehension and enables clearer categorization of studies. 9. In the results section on pages 11-12, the authors describe the different theories and characterize the publications falling under each theory type. What struck me is how similar the descriptions of the differing theories sounded. Several of them were described as “holistic” and several mentioned the effects of social, environmental, and individual factors on walking behaviors. Could the authors develop a framework that allows the reader to see the differences between these theoretical frameworks? Which frameworks cover topics or issues that are not covered by the others? Response: The Results section has been revised to emphasize distinctive theoretical emphases and reduce descriptive overlap. Each framework is now differentiated based on its primary analytical orientation (e.g., physical activity, ecological systems, participatory planning, neighbourhood social cohesion, or person–environment fit). 10. The lengthy paragraph on how far back the literature review should go back was not informative and lacked an empirical basis. For example, the claim “The SEMHP has had an ideal period of impact during the last 15-20 years” is not substantiated by data or a citation. The authors could establish a conventional time frame for their search (i.e. 20 years or 30 years) without including this paragraph. Or they could provide more evidence to support the claims in this paragraph. Response: The theory-specific time-range justification paragraph has been replaced with a standardized publication timeframe justification (2000–2023) grounded in methodological consistency, thereby removing unsupported claims. 11. The description of search terms that occurs in the second paragraph of page 5 does not correspond with the search terms actually employed in Table 1. The paragraph mentions the terms “safety,” “comfort” and “convenience” but none of these terms occur in Table 1. Meanwhile, Table 1 includes many search terms, such as “Walkability,” “Older Adults” and “Physical Activity” that are not described in the narrative. The authors should re-write this section to correspond to the searches that were actually conducted, and the narrative and the table should correspond closely to each other. Response: The search strategy section has been revised so that the narrative description and Table 1 correspond exactly . Keywords such as safety, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics are now consistently included in both the text and the table. 12. Several of the exclusion criteria do not seem to be necessary for exclusion. “Approached challenges and issues related to BEW development.” “Qualitatively discussed BEW concerning historical and current scenarios across various contexts, including sectoral, regional, national, international, etc.” Why would these be exclusion criteria? This is not obvious. Response: The exclusion criteria have been reworded to clarify that the review focuses on theory-driven analytical studies rather than purely descriptive or historical discussions. The rationale for exclusion is now explicitly stated. 13. With regard to Research Types, I am not clear on how Empirical Research is different from Analytical Research. Both seem to be empirical and statistical in nature. Response: The Research Type table has been revised to clarify that Empirical Research refers to primary data collection methods, whereas Analytical Research involves statistical modeling, secondary data analysis, or simulation-based approaches. 14. The discussion section is repetitive. The authors mention several times the potential benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need for more model advancement and model integration. This section can be condensed. Response: The Discussion section has been rewritten to reduce repetition, consolidate overlapping arguments, and improve thematic flow while maintaining analytical depth and future research direction clarity. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback. The comments have been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, scope, and methodological transparency of the manuscript. All suggested revisions have been carefully incorporated. Our responses to each concern are provided below. This systematic literature review examines theoretical approaches to supportive environments for walking for older adults. Response: Thank you for the acknowledgement. The manuscript continues to retain this core objective, and subsequent revisions have aimed to enhance clarity in how theoretical approaches and supportive environments are framed and analyzed. 2. The authors’ approach to a systematic literature review is well documented, but confusing in some aspects. For example, the authors claim in the abstract to review themes such as safety, security, comfort, and convenience, but these terms and concepts are almost entirely absent from the paper. Response: This concern has been addressed by explicitly integrating the themes of safety, security, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics into the Introduction, Methods, Keywords, and Search Strategy sections. These dimensions are now consistently reflected in the manuscript narrative and in Table 1 to ensure alignment between the abstract and the main body of the paper. 3. The authors’ literature review framework is reasonable, in that they review papers with respect to the conceptual model employed, the research focus, and the research type, and they summarize the reviewed papers according to these dimensions. Yet many aspects of the review as written remain unclear or inadequately analyzed. Response: We appreciate this observation. Several sections, particularly the Research Focus, Quality Assessment, and Discussion , have been revised to improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and strengthen analytical depth. Definitions and structural explanations have been added where ambiguity previously existed. 4. This critique will start with big-picture issues and then delve into some more nuanced potential refinements. First, the framework of “BEW” or “Built Environment for Walking” seems to be inconsistent with what the authors find and discuss. The authors mention the importance of social environments and policy dynamics, so from the start the frame should be drawn much larger than the built environment. Perhaps built and social environments? The other term the authors use is “antecedents” which might be a good term, but if so the authors should use it more consistently and define it clearly. The term “antecedents” does not occur in any of the stated research questions. Response: The Introduction has been revised to define Built Environment for Walking (BEW) as an umbrella construct that includes physical, social, and policy-level dimensions . The term “antecedents” has now been clearly defined and explicitly incorporated into the research questions to ensure conceptual consistency throughout the manuscript. 5. The authors’ abstract suggests a comprehensive literature review of how urban design influences walking access and behavior for older adults. However, the authors have heavily focused on theoretical frameworks in their literature search, possibly filtering out empirical papers that are light on theory. I believe the authors’ contribution is still valuable, but the abstract should more accurately indicate the scope of the literature review conducted. Response: The abstract has been rewritten to more accurately reflect the manuscript’s emphasis on theoretical frameworks and conceptual models rather than a purely empirical urban design review. This ensures alignment between the stated scope and the actual methodological focus. 6. Systematic literature reviews generally include an evaluation of research quality. However, conventional evaluation criteria for research quality typically concern on quantitative analysis methods, such as research design, the presence of confounders, the use of blinding, the validation of data collection methods, and so forth (Ravensbergen and El-Geneidy, 2023) [Ref-1]. The authors are quite vague on their methods of evaluation for research quality. I would suggest that with the authors’ topical focus being on theoretical approaches and contributions, evaluation of research quality may not be relevant. Response: The Quality Assessment subsection has been clarified to explain that, due to the theoretical orientation of the review, quality evaluation emphasized conceptual clarity, theoretical relevance, and methodological transparency rather than statistical rigor alone. This aligns the evaluation criteria with the study’s objectives. 7. The authors mention that both “contribution type” and “research focus” are of interest. However, there is no description of different categories of contribution type. Are “contribution type” and “research focus” the same? At the bottom of page 8 the heading is “Contribution type” with no discussion of what this means. Then the following section is on “Research Focus” and identifies four types: 1) Model Development, 2) Model Testing, 3) Model Advancing, and 4) Model Integration. So it seems that a discussion of “Contribution Type” is missing or is perhaps synonymous with with “Research Focus.” Response: The manuscript has been revised to clarify that Research Focus represents the primary analytical classification, while “Contribution Type” is used descriptively rather than as a separate analytical category. Redundant or ambiguous headings have been refined to avoid conceptual overlap. 8. I found the section on the four different “Research Focuses” to be problematic. The four focuses, as I understand them, are Model Development, Model Testing, Model Advancement, and Model Integration.” After reading this section, I am still unclear on the differences. This section reads more like a miniature literature review rather than a conceptual section that defines what makes each of these foci different from each other. I am expecting to read brief definitions with perhaps one example. The goal should be for the reader to be able to tell when a paper falls in one category versus the other. After reading this section, I had no idea how a paper would be categorized into one of these foci. Response: Each research focus category (Model Development, Testing, Advancement, Integration) now begins with a concise conceptual definition before examples are presented. This restructuring improves reader comprehension and enables clearer categorization of studies. 9. In the results section on pages 11-12, the authors describe the different theories and characterize the publications falling under each theory type. What struck me is how similar the descriptions of the differing theories sounded. Several of them were described as “holistic” and several mentioned the effects of social, environmental, and individual factors on walking behaviors. Could the authors develop a framework that allows the reader to see the differences between these theoretical frameworks? Which frameworks cover topics or issues that are not covered by the others? Response: The Results section has been revised to emphasize distinctive theoretical emphases and reduce descriptive overlap. Each framework is now differentiated based on its primary analytical orientation (e.g., physical activity, ecological systems, participatory planning, neighbourhood social cohesion, or person–environment fit). 10. The lengthy paragraph on how far back the literature review should go back was not informative and lacked an empirical basis. For example, the claim “The SEMHP has had an ideal period of impact during the last 15-20 years” is not substantiated by data or a citation. The authors could establish a conventional time frame for their search (i.e. 20 years or 30 years) without including this paragraph. Or they could provide more evidence to support the claims in this paragraph. Response: The theory-specific time-range justification paragraph has been replaced with a standardized publication timeframe justification (2000–2023) grounded in methodological consistency, thereby removing unsupported claims. 11. The description of search terms that occurs in the second paragraph of page 5 does not correspond with the search terms actually employed in Table 1. The paragraph mentions the terms “safety,” “comfort” and “convenience” but none of these terms occur in Table 1. Meanwhile, Table 1 includes many search terms, such as “Walkability,” “Older Adults” and “Physical Activity” that are not described in the narrative. The authors should re-write this section to correspond to the searches that were actually conducted, and the narrative and the table should correspond closely to each other. Response: The search strategy section has been revised so that the narrative description and Table 1 correspond exactly . Keywords such as safety, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics are now consistently included in both the text and the table. 12. Several of the exclusion criteria do not seem to be necessary for exclusion. “Approached challenges and issues related to BEW development.” “Qualitatively discussed BEW concerning historical and current scenarios across various contexts, including sectoral, regional, national, international, etc.” Why would these be exclusion criteria? This is not obvious. Response: The exclusion criteria have been reworded to clarify that the review focuses on theory-driven analytical studies rather than purely descriptive or historical discussions. The rationale for exclusion is now explicitly stated. 13. With regard to Research Types, I am not clear on how Empirical Research is different from Analytical Research. Both seem to be empirical and statistical in nature. Response: The Research Type table has been revised to clarify that Empirical Research refers to primary data collection methods, whereas Analytical Research involves statistical modeling, secondary data analysis, or simulation-based approaches. 14. The discussion section is repetitive. The authors mention several times the potential benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need for more model advancement and model integration. This section can be condensed. Response: The Discussion section has been rewritten to reduce repetition, consolidate overlapping arguments, and improve thematic flow while maintaining analytical depth and future research direction clarity. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 14 Feb 2026 Akshatha Rao , Manipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 14 Feb 2026 Author Response We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback. The comments have been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, scope, and methodological transparency of the manuscript. All suggested ... Continue reading We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback. The comments have been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, scope, and methodological transparency of the manuscript. All suggested revisions have been carefully incorporated. Our responses to each concern are provided below. This systematic literature review examines theoretical approaches to supportive environments for walking for older adults. Response: Thank you for the acknowledgement. The manuscript continues to retain this core objective, and subsequent revisions have aimed to enhance clarity in how theoretical approaches and supportive environments are framed and analyzed. 2. The authors’ approach to a systematic literature review is well documented, but confusing in some aspects. For example, the authors claim in the abstract to review themes such as safety, security, comfort, and convenience, but these terms and concepts are almost entirely absent from the paper. Response: This concern has been addressed by explicitly integrating the themes of safety, security, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics into the Introduction, Methods, Keywords, and Search Strategy sections. These dimensions are now consistently reflected in the manuscript narrative and in Table 1 to ensure alignment between the abstract and the main body of the paper. 3. The authors’ literature review framework is reasonable, in that they review papers with respect to the conceptual model employed, the research focus, and the research type, and they summarize the reviewed papers according to these dimensions. Yet many aspects of the review as written remain unclear or inadequately analyzed. Response: We appreciate this observation. Several sections, particularly the Research Focus, Quality Assessment, and Discussion , have been revised to improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and strengthen analytical depth. Definitions and structural explanations have been added where ambiguity previously existed. 4. This critique will start with big-picture issues and then delve into some more nuanced potential refinements. First, the framework of “BEW” or “Built Environment for Walking” seems to be inconsistent with what the authors find and discuss. The authors mention the importance of social environments and policy dynamics, so from the start the frame should be drawn much larger than the built environment. Perhaps built and social environments? The other term the authors use is “antecedents” which might be a good term, but if so the authors should use it more consistently and define it clearly. The term “antecedents” does not occur in any of the stated research questions. Response: The Introduction has been revised to define Built Environment for Walking (BEW) as an umbrella construct that includes physical, social, and policy-level dimensions . The term “antecedents” has now been clearly defined and explicitly incorporated into the research questions to ensure conceptual consistency throughout the manuscript. 5. The authors’ abstract suggests a comprehensive literature review of how urban design influences walking access and behavior for older adults. However, the authors have heavily focused on theoretical frameworks in their literature search, possibly filtering out empirical papers that are light on theory. I believe the authors’ contribution is still valuable, but the abstract should more accurately indicate the scope of the literature review conducted. Response: The abstract has been rewritten to more accurately reflect the manuscript’s emphasis on theoretical frameworks and conceptual models rather than a purely empirical urban design review. This ensures alignment between the stated scope and the actual methodological focus. 6. Systematic literature reviews generally include an evaluation of research quality. However, conventional evaluation criteria for research quality typically concern on quantitative analysis methods, such as research design, the presence of confounders, the use of blinding, the validation of data collection methods, and so forth (Ravensbergen and El-Geneidy, 2023) [Ref-1]. The authors are quite vague on their methods of evaluation for research quality. I would suggest that with the authors’ topical focus being on theoretical approaches and contributions, evaluation of research quality may not be relevant. Response: The Quality Assessment subsection has been clarified to explain that, due to the theoretical orientation of the review, quality evaluation emphasized conceptual clarity, theoretical relevance, and methodological transparency rather than statistical rigor alone. This aligns the evaluation criteria with the study’s objectives. 7. The authors mention that both “contribution type” and “research focus” are of interest. However, there is no description of different categories of contribution type. Are “contribution type” and “research focus” the same? At the bottom of page 8 the heading is “Contribution type” with no discussion of what this means. Then the following section is on “Research Focus” and identifies four types: 1) Model Development, 2) Model Testing, 3) Model Advancing, and 4) Model Integration. So it seems that a discussion of “Contribution Type” is missing or is perhaps synonymous with with “Research Focus.” Response: The manuscript has been revised to clarify that Research Focus represents the primary analytical classification, while “Contribution Type” is used descriptively rather than as a separate analytical category. Redundant or ambiguous headings have been refined to avoid conceptual overlap. 8. I found the section on the four different “Research Focuses” to be problematic. The four focuses, as I understand them, are Model Development, Model Testing, Model Advancement, and Model Integration.” After reading this section, I am still unclear on the differences. This section reads more like a miniature literature review rather than a conceptual section that defines what makes each of these foci different from each other. I am expecting to read brief definitions with perhaps one example. The goal should be for the reader to be able to tell when a paper falls in one category versus the other. After reading this section, I had no idea how a paper would be categorized into one of these foci. Response: Each research focus category (Model Development, Testing, Advancement, Integration) now begins with a concise conceptual definition before examples are presented. This restructuring improves reader comprehension and enables clearer categorization of studies. 9. In the results section on pages 11-12, the authors describe the different theories and characterize the publications falling under each theory type. What struck me is how similar the descriptions of the differing theories sounded. Several of them were described as “holistic” and several mentioned the effects of social, environmental, and individual factors on walking behaviors. Could the authors develop a framework that allows the reader to see the differences between these theoretical frameworks? Which frameworks cover topics or issues that are not covered by the others? Response: The Results section has been revised to emphasize distinctive theoretical emphases and reduce descriptive overlap. Each framework is now differentiated based on its primary analytical orientation (e.g., physical activity, ecological systems, participatory planning, neighbourhood social cohesion, or person–environment fit). 10. The lengthy paragraph on how far back the literature review should go back was not informative and lacked an empirical basis. For example, the claim “The SEMHP has had an ideal period of impact during the last 15-20 years” is not substantiated by data or a citation. The authors could establish a conventional time frame for their search (i.e. 20 years or 30 years) without including this paragraph. Or they could provide more evidence to support the claims in this paragraph. Response: The theory-specific time-range justification paragraph has been replaced with a standardized publication timeframe justification (2000–2023) grounded in methodological consistency, thereby removing unsupported claims. 11. The description of search terms that occurs in the second paragraph of page 5 does not correspond with the search terms actually employed in Table 1. The paragraph mentions the terms “safety,” “comfort” and “convenience” but none of these terms occur in Table 1. Meanwhile, Table 1 includes many search terms, such as “Walkability,” “Older Adults” and “Physical Activity” that are not described in the narrative. The authors should re-write this section to correspond to the searches that were actually conducted, and the narrative and the table should correspond closely to each other. Response: The search strategy section has been revised so that the narrative description and Table 1 correspond exactly . Keywords such as safety, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics are now consistently included in both the text and the table. 12. Several of the exclusion criteria do not seem to be necessary for exclusion. “Approached challenges and issues related to BEW development.” “Qualitatively discussed BEW concerning historical and current scenarios across various contexts, including sectoral, regional, national, international, etc.” Why would these be exclusion criteria? This is not obvious. Response: The exclusion criteria have been reworded to clarify that the review focuses on theory-driven analytical studies rather than purely descriptive or historical discussions. The rationale for exclusion is now explicitly stated. 13. With regard to Research Types, I am not clear on how Empirical Research is different from Analytical Research. Both seem to be empirical and statistical in nature. Response: The Research Type table has been revised to clarify that Empirical Research refers to primary data collection methods, whereas Analytical Research involves statistical modeling, secondary data analysis, or simulation-based approaches. 14. The discussion section is repetitive. The authors mention several times the potential benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need for more model advancement and model integration. This section can be condensed. Response: The Discussion section has been rewritten to reduce repetition, consolidate overlapping arguments, and improve thematic flow while maintaining analytical depth and future research direction clarity. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback. The comments have been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, scope, and methodological transparency of the manuscript. All suggested revisions have been carefully incorporated. Our responses to each concern are provided below. This systematic literature review examines theoretical approaches to supportive environments for walking for older adults. Response: Thank you for the acknowledgement. The manuscript continues to retain this core objective, and subsequent revisions have aimed to enhance clarity in how theoretical approaches and supportive environments are framed and analyzed. 2. The authors’ approach to a systematic literature review is well documented, but confusing in some aspects. For example, the authors claim in the abstract to review themes such as safety, security, comfort, and convenience, but these terms and concepts are almost entirely absent from the paper. Response: This concern has been addressed by explicitly integrating the themes of safety, security, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics into the Introduction, Methods, Keywords, and Search Strategy sections. These dimensions are now consistently reflected in the manuscript narrative and in Table 1 to ensure alignment between the abstract and the main body of the paper. 3. The authors’ literature review framework is reasonable, in that they review papers with respect to the conceptual model employed, the research focus, and the research type, and they summarize the reviewed papers according to these dimensions. Yet many aspects of the review as written remain unclear or inadequately analyzed. Response: We appreciate this observation. Several sections, particularly the Research Focus, Quality Assessment, and Discussion , have been revised to improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and strengthen analytical depth. Definitions and structural explanations have been added where ambiguity previously existed. 4. This critique will start with big-picture issues and then delve into some more nuanced potential refinements. First, the framework of “BEW” or “Built Environment for Walking” seems to be inconsistent with what the authors find and discuss. The authors mention the importance of social environments and policy dynamics, so from the start the frame should be drawn much larger than the built environment. Perhaps built and social environments? The other term the authors use is “antecedents” which might be a good term, but if so the authors should use it more consistently and define it clearly. The term “antecedents” does not occur in any of the stated research questions. Response: The Introduction has been revised to define Built Environment for Walking (BEW) as an umbrella construct that includes physical, social, and policy-level dimensions . The term “antecedents” has now been clearly defined and explicitly incorporated into the research questions to ensure conceptual consistency throughout the manuscript. 5. The authors’ abstract suggests a comprehensive literature review of how urban design influences walking access and behavior for older adults. However, the authors have heavily focused on theoretical frameworks in their literature search, possibly filtering out empirical papers that are light on theory. I believe the authors’ contribution is still valuable, but the abstract should more accurately indicate the scope of the literature review conducted. Response: The abstract has been rewritten to more accurately reflect the manuscript’s emphasis on theoretical frameworks and conceptual models rather than a purely empirical urban design review. This ensures alignment between the stated scope and the actual methodological focus. 6. Systematic literature reviews generally include an evaluation of research quality. However, conventional evaluation criteria for research quality typically concern on quantitative analysis methods, such as research design, the presence of confounders, the use of blinding, the validation of data collection methods, and so forth (Ravensbergen and El-Geneidy, 2023) [Ref-1]. The authors are quite vague on their methods of evaluation for research quality. I would suggest that with the authors’ topical focus being on theoretical approaches and contributions, evaluation of research quality may not be relevant. Response: The Quality Assessment subsection has been clarified to explain that, due to the theoretical orientation of the review, quality evaluation emphasized conceptual clarity, theoretical relevance, and methodological transparency rather than statistical rigor alone. This aligns the evaluation criteria with the study’s objectives. 7. The authors mention that both “contribution type” and “research focus” are of interest. However, there is no description of different categories of contribution type. Are “contribution type” and “research focus” the same? At the bottom of page 8 the heading is “Contribution type” with no discussion of what this means. Then the following section is on “Research Focus” and identifies four types: 1) Model Development, 2) Model Testing, 3) Model Advancing, and 4) Model Integration. So it seems that a discussion of “Contribution Type” is missing or is perhaps synonymous with with “Research Focus.” Response: The manuscript has been revised to clarify that Research Focus represents the primary analytical classification, while “Contribution Type” is used descriptively rather than as a separate analytical category. Redundant or ambiguous headings have been refined to avoid conceptual overlap. 8. I found the section on the four different “Research Focuses” to be problematic. The four focuses, as I understand them, are Model Development, Model Testing, Model Advancement, and Model Integration.” After reading this section, I am still unclear on the differences. This section reads more like a miniature literature review rather than a conceptual section that defines what makes each of these foci different from each other. I am expecting to read brief definitions with perhaps one example. The goal should be for the reader to be able to tell when a paper falls in one category versus the other. After reading this section, I had no idea how a paper would be categorized into one of these foci. Response: Each research focus category (Model Development, Testing, Advancement, Integration) now begins with a concise conceptual definition before examples are presented. This restructuring improves reader comprehension and enables clearer categorization of studies. 9. In the results section on pages 11-12, the authors describe the different theories and characterize the publications falling under each theory type. What struck me is how similar the descriptions of the differing theories sounded. Several of them were described as “holistic” and several mentioned the effects of social, environmental, and individual factors on walking behaviors. Could the authors develop a framework that allows the reader to see the differences between these theoretical frameworks? Which frameworks cover topics or issues that are not covered by the others? Response: The Results section has been revised to emphasize distinctive theoretical emphases and reduce descriptive overlap. Each framework is now differentiated based on its primary analytical orientation (e.g., physical activity, ecological systems, participatory planning, neighbourhood social cohesion, or person–environment fit). 10. The lengthy paragraph on how far back the literature review should go back was not informative and lacked an empirical basis. For example, the claim “The SEMHP has had an ideal period of impact during the last 15-20 years” is not substantiated by data or a citation. The authors could establish a conventional time frame for their search (i.e. 20 years or 30 years) without including this paragraph. Or they could provide more evidence to support the claims in this paragraph. Response: The theory-specific time-range justification paragraph has been replaced with a standardized publication timeframe justification (2000–2023) grounded in methodological consistency, thereby removing unsupported claims. 11. The description of search terms that occurs in the second paragraph of page 5 does not correspond with the search terms actually employed in Table 1. The paragraph mentions the terms “safety,” “comfort” and “convenience” but none of these terms occur in Table 1. Meanwhile, Table 1 includes many search terms, such as “Walkability,” “Older Adults” and “Physical Activity” that are not described in the narrative. The authors should re-write this section to correspond to the searches that were actually conducted, and the narrative and the table should correspond closely to each other. Response: The search strategy section has been revised so that the narrative description and Table 1 correspond exactly . Keywords such as safety, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics are now consistently included in both the text and the table. 12. Several of the exclusion criteria do not seem to be necessary for exclusion. “Approached challenges and issues related to BEW development.” “Qualitatively discussed BEW concerning historical and current scenarios across various contexts, including sectoral, regional, national, international, etc.” Why would these be exclusion criteria? This is not obvious. Response: The exclusion criteria have been reworded to clarify that the review focuses on theory-driven analytical studies rather than purely descriptive or historical discussions. The rationale for exclusion is now explicitly stated. 13. With regard to Research Types, I am not clear on how Empirical Research is different from Analytical Research. Both seem to be empirical and statistical in nature. Response: The Research Type table has been revised to clarify that Empirical Research refers to primary data collection methods, whereas Analytical Research involves statistical modeling, secondary data analysis, or simulation-based approaches. 14. The discussion section is repetitive. The authors mention several times the potential benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need for more model advancement and model integration. This section can be condensed. Response: The Discussion section has been rewritten to reduce repetition, consolidate overlapping arguments, and improve thematic flow while maintaining analytical depth and future research direction clarity. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 24 Feb 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 14 Feb 26 read Version 1 24 Feb 25 read read Louis A Merlin , Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, USA E. Owen D. Waygood , Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, Canada Hualong Qiu , Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), Shenzhen, China Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Qiu H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 05 Mar 2026 | for Version 2 Hualong Qiu , Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), Shenzhen, China 0 Views copyright © 2026 Qiu H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript contains critical errors in theoretical conceptualization and methodological execution. We recommend rejection. The manuscript presents a systematic literature review on antecedents of built environment for walkability among older adults. However, it contains fundamental theoretical and methodological flaws that undermine its scholarly contribution. The most critical issue is a pervasive misrepresentation of conceptual frameworks as "theories." The manuscript repeatedly labels descriptive tools like the Active Aging Framework and Social-Ecological Model as "theories," despite these lacking testable hypotheses, causal mechanisms, or theoretical foundations. This foundational error invalidates the entire analytical approach. The methodological description is insufficiently transparent. While the manuscript claims adherence to PRISMA guidelines, it fails to provide a detailed search strategy, omits justification for selecting only 11 databases (contradicting the stated 15 indexing agencies), and lacks clarity on inclusion criteria and quality assessment standards. The assertion that "622 studies were retrieved" offers no evidence of how relevance was determined, rendering the review's scope unverifiable. The analysis remains superficial, focusing exclusively on the frequency of framework usage (e.g., "AAF is the most frequently used framework at 35.4%") without offering meaningful comparative insights. The claim that "many models are described as holistic but vary significantly in weighting factors" is unsupported by substantive evidence. The review fails to examine theoretical relationships, complementarities, or contradictions between frameworks, reducing the work to a mere descriptive inventory. Critical theoretical concepts are conflated throughout the manuscript. The distinction between "theoretical antecedents" (predicted causal relationships) and "empirical antecedents" (observed findings) is blurred, weakening the conceptual rigor. Furthermore, the review omits engagement with established theoretical foundations in the field, such as Lewin’s Field Theory or Social Cognitive Theory, and neglects to evaluate the applicability, limitations, or evolution of the frameworks under discussion. Given these irreparable deficiencies in theoretical precision, methodological transparency, and analytical depth, the manuscript cannot meet the standards required for indexing. The core misunderstanding of "theory" as a conceptual framework rather than a testable construct fundamentally compromises the study’s validity. We therefore recommend rejection. The authors must entirely reconceptualize their research question, clarify theoretical terminology, and conduct a substantially revised review to address these foundational issues before reconsideration. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? No Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? No If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise I leverage explainable machine learning and computer vision to decode the complex, non-linear relationships between the built environment and elderly mobility, aiming to provide data-driven design strategies for developing age-friendly and inclusive cities. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Qiu H. Peer Review Report For: Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196157.r459447) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v2#referee-response-459447 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Waygood E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 04 Sep 2025 | for Version 1 E. Owen D. Waygood , Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, Canada 0 Views copyright © 2025 Waygood E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The title and objective of the review are not coherent with the paper outcomes. The review examines the extent to which pre-determined theories have been applied and what general approaches they have used. It states recommendations that are not demonstrated in the review. The review would need a complete overhaul to be publishable. If the objective is to examine the use of those theories and their comparison, than it should do that in a systematic way. What is studied (outcome)? What is used to explain that outcome (explanatory variables)? What techniques are used to measure the outcome and explanatory variables? There are many questions that could be examined to support what is stated in the future directions and conclusions. As the paper stands, it is not publishable I'm afraid. Here are my detailed comments: Abstract I’m not sure if you used the journal’s template, but I would make the objective a separate section. The results do not seem to correspond to the objective “Examining various theories, it analyses themes like safety, security, comfort, convenience, aesthetics, governance, and policy frameworks . B y critically reviewing the literature, it seeks to understand current research trends and suggest future directions.” The current results are simply a summary of theories that were applied and the type of the study. The findings of this research and the trends that they identify are not clear to me. The Conclusion states that we could combine the two most relevant theories, but it is not clear what those are or how it was determined that they are the relevant ones. “ In the introduction, it is crucial to underscore the importance of conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) as opposed to other types of literature reviews.” This seems like guidance to someone when writing a paper. I don’t think you need this sentence. The discussion of SLR would be more appropriate in the methods. Only the last sentence seems relevant for the introduction. I don’t feel that the research gap is clearly established. What has previous research done and what is the gap that you can propose exists? “most importantly, theories applicable to the BEW of older adults and identify gaps in knowledge to inform future research directions and policy interventions.” Why is this the most important part? There is no argument presented for this. Method I recognize that what I may look for from such a review is different, but I feel like a key outcome of a systematic review is to see what we know rather than what theories and what types of studies have been done. For me, that would be secondary – a means to understand the findings and then identify limitations and gaps. “the identification of the theories that influence the BEWof older adults” The theories that would influence the BEW would be how the planners are thinking, but I’m sure that this is what you are looking at. It seems more about the thinking of academics, who do not directly influence the built environment. Identifying key words. If the objective is to identify what theories were used for BEW of older adults, why are you already proposing theories? This seems like a way to simply confirm that those are theories that are (or are not) used. This approach seems to bias the diversity of theories that you would find. “five theories have a dominant influence” How is this demonstrated or established? Did a previous (and more open) research review on BEW of older adults find that? It is not clear how the years of influence of the different theories are established. It seems like you are deciding ahead of time the range of years of influence without demonstrating from the literature that those ideas started to be applied at certain times. Search terms The terms “walkability” and “pedestrian friendly” are a newish terms, but I suspect that people discussed those ideas before the terms existed. Might a more general term such as “walk*” or pedestrian allow for relevant concepts to be identified, especially as relates to older literature on the subject? It’s not clear to me why you have used a search strategy that is based on a set number of theories if you want to see what theories are used. Why haven’t you simply searched the literature on BEW of older adults, and then identify what theories were used? It would be useful if mention in the paper that you are applying PRISMA to report the details of your methodology. “ dealt exclusively with the comparison of two or more theories,” This is the first time that such a criterion is mentioned. Why must the research compare two or more theories? You have not given any argument for why this is a criterion of inclusion. “ evaluated a hypothetical model by providing linkages to the core model and” It is not clear to me exactly what you mean by this. Do you mean, “evaluated the results by applying a theory/framework/model”? “ criticized, proposed new solutions, and presented new/extended/hybridized models or theories to develop contemporary models of BEW.” Again, it is not clear to me why a paper must present a new/extended/hybridized model to be included. “ approached challenges and issues related to BEW development” It is not clear to me why this is an exclusion criterion. Do mean, “made no empirical examination of walking outcomes based on BEW”? It is not clear ot me how these are different from “View-point” articles. Quality assessment It is not clear to me what the quality criteria were. Research focus This section should be at the start of this paper. Finally it is saying what previous work has done and gets at some of the gaps. Also, a clear definition of each of these terms (model development/testing/advancement/integration) must be given, otherwise it is not clear how you decide how a paper should be categorized. “ The focus was on understanding the relationships between these factors and the outcomes associated with increased physical activity, enhanced socialization, and improved quality of life for older adults.” This is the first time that I had any idea about what impacts of the BEW on older adults that you might be considering. If you are examining this, make it clear from the start. Both “quality of life” and “well-being” are used. Are you considering these terms interchangeable? A description of each should be given. “ These studies have demonstrated the significance of model testing in understanding the impact of the built environment on older adults’ walking habits and the influence of various factors on their physical activity levels and social interactions.” Perhaps I’m not understanding what you are getting at, but the section simply lists a few findings. It’s not evident what you mean by model testing. I think you mean to statistically test a model/theory of BEW on older adults walking outcomes. Model advancement: The advancement of models is not really evident to me here. It is talking about different methods used in studies. Model integration “ well-being and lifestyle of older adults” Now, lifestyle has been mentioned, but not defined. It is not clear to me how this paragraph relates to model integration. It seems to be repeating the same approach as the previous paragraphs of mentioning a few studies that used a theory and a research approach. The purpose or idea behind “model integration” needs to be clearly stated. “ older adults who adopt the CEUDT” Do you mean studies that adopt the CEUDT to study BEW of older adults? The findings seem to be just a description of what the theory aims to examine. This type of description should be in the introduction if the purpose of this review is to examine its application in research – are there different findings as opposed to the other theories? Do they refute the others or simply add additional considerations? The same could be said for the following paragraphs. I feel like findings on what they used for those different considerations would be an important addition. Do they use different measures to consider the individual, the household, the neighborhood? Do they use different measures to examine outcomes? How do the models relate and how do they differ? The subtle differences between EMA and SEMHP could be highlighted. “ Analysing the publication trend based on various indexing agencies reveals distinct patterns in the dissemination of research on the BEW of older adults.” I’m not sure of the value of this paragraph. Is it important where they are indexed? “ Thus, the increase in publications on BEWof older adults is likely due to a combination of growing awareness, policy changes, technological advancements, and an emerging research field dedicated to addressing the needs of older adults.” I might propose a different possibility: that baby-boomers, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon countries that have published the most, are car dependent but are now getting much older. As a large part of the population, their needs are often a large influence on policies and research funding. Results of theory identification and frequency of use Different theories are often more or less prominent in different fields of studies. Different fields of studies have varying levels of funding and approaches to scientific paper writing. If a theory is used in health sciences (where much more research money is available), they might produce more – this is not evidence of greater importance, but might just be an anecdote of how that field examines the issue. In terms of sampling, will there be a discussion on the implications of mostly using non-probability sampling? Discussion Paragraph starting, “ The AAF emerged as the most widely used theory, with 35.4% of the total papers incorporating its principles.” I’m not sure of the value of this paragraph. It is stating what those different theories aim to do. As these theories were pre-selected, the reason for selecting only papers that relate to them would include the description of their objectives where are given in this paragraph. I don’t see what is new other than to say, “if we only search for papers using these theories, then we find X theory represents Y % of those papers.” “ The systematic literature review reveals a diverse landscape of research contributions within the context of the built environment and walkability for older adults.” I’m not sure that I agree. It is not really clear to me what the research contributions are of the papers that were found other than to say they applied a theory and there were some findings. A clear synthesis of those finds was presented such as a table that says, “tested for X factor” and then if it was found to be statistically significant or not, or in the case of qualitative work, whether people mentioned it as an influencing factor. The qualitative work might identify influences that have not yet been tested empirically. “ Additionally, there is an opportunity for more comparative studies to explore variations in walkability interventions across different geographical contexts and cultural settings.” This is certainly a point to emphasize. The literature is dominated by Anglo-Saxon cultures and built environments, which are more the exception than the norm globally. “ there is an opportunity for more comparative studies to explore variations in walkability interventions across different geographical contexts and cultural settings” OK, but give arguments as to why this is important. “ Leveraging emerging technologies such as geographic information systems (GISs) and wearable sensors could also enable more dynamic and fine-grained assessments of walkability, offering real-time feedback and personalized recommendations for older adults” OK, but it is not clear from your review how people captured data on walking or such. Also, every method has advantages and disadvantages and those should be acknowledged. The aspect of interdisciplinary research is mentioned, but again, we don’t know the state of interdisciplinary research in the reviewed articles as this is not reported. The review sought to examine trends, which are changes over time, but it only summarized the frequency of models. It didn’t who what the frequency of the application of those models over time was. The abstract stated that the review would examine: safety, security, comfort, convenience, aesthetics, governance, and policy frameworks. I did not see any synthesis or examination of those. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? No Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? No If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Travel behaviour; transport and health; built environment influences on behavioural outcomes; I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Waygood EOD. Peer Review Report For: Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177260.r407275) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1#referee-response-407275 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Merlin L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 26 Mar 2025 | for Version 1 Louis A Merlin , Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Merlin L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This systematic literature review examines theoretical approaches to supportive environments for walking for older adults. The authors’ approach to a systematic literature review is well documented, but confusing in some aspects. For example, the authors claim in the abstract to review themes such as safety, security, comfort, and convenience, but these terms and concepts are almost entirely absent from the paper. The authors’ literature review framework is reasonable, in that they review papers with respect to the conceptual model employed, the research focus, and the research type, and they summarize the reviewed papers according to these dimensions. Yet many aspects of the review as written remain unclear or inadequately analyzed. This critique will start with big-picture issues and then delve into some more nuanced potential refinements. First, the framework of “BEW” or “Built Environment for Walking” seems to be inconsistent with what the authors find and discuss. The authors mention the importance of social environments and policy dynamics, so from the start the frame should be drawn much larger than the built environment. Perhaps built and social environments? The other term the authors use is “antecedents” which might be a good term, but if so the authors should use it more consistently and define it clearly. The term “antecedents” does not occur in any of the stated research questions. The authors’ abstract suggests a comprehensive literature review of how urban design influences walking access and behavior for older adults. However, the authors have heavily focused on theoretical frameworks in their literature search, possibly filtering out empirical papers that are light on theory. I believe the authors’ contribution is still valuable, but the abstract should more accurately indicate the scope of the literature review conducted. Systematic literature reviews generally include an evaluation of research quality. However, conventional evaluation criteria for research quality typically concern on quantitative analysis methods, such as research design, the presence of confounders, the use of blinding, the validation of data collection methods, and so forth (Ravensbergen and El-Geneidy, 2023) [Ref-1]. The authors are quite vague on their methods of evaluation for research quality. I would suggest that with the authors’ topical focus being on theoretical approaches and contributions, evaluation of research quality may not be relevant. The authors mention that both “contribution type” and “research focus” are of interest. However, there is no description of different categories of contribution type. Are “contribution type” and “research focus” the same? At the bottom of page 8 the heading is “Contribution type” with no discussion of what this means. Then the following section is on “Research Focus” and identifies four types: 1) Model Development, 2) Model Testing, 3) Model Advancing, and 4) Model Integration. So it seems that a discussion of “Contribution Type” is missing or is perhaps synonymous with with “Research Focus.” I found the section on the four different “Research Focuses” to be problematic. The four focuses, as I understand them, are Model Development, Model Testing, Model Advancement, and Model Integration.” After reading this section, I am still unclear on the differences. This section reads more like a miniature literature review rather than a conceptual section that defines what makes each of these foci different from each other. I am expecting to read brief definitions with perhaps one example. The goal should be for the reader to be able to tell when a paper falls in one category versus the other. After reading this section, I had no idea how a paper would be categorized into one of these foci. In the results section on pages 11-12, the authors describe the different theories and characterize the publications falling under each theory type. What struck me is how similar the descriptions of the differing theories sounded. Several of them were described as “holistic” and several mentioned the effects of social, environmental, and individual factors on walking behaviors. Could the authors develop a framework that allows the reader to see the differences between these theoretical frameworks? Which frameworks cover topics or issues that are not covered by the others? The lengthy paragraph on how far back the literature review should go back was not informative and lacked an empirical basis. For example, the claim “The SEMHP has had an ideal period of impact during the last 15-20 years” is not substantiated by data or a citation. The authors could establish a conventional time frame for their search (i.e. 20 years or 30 years) without including this paragraph. Or they could provide more evidence to support the claims in this paragraph. The description of search terms that occurs in the second paragraph of page 5 does not correspond with the search terms actually employed in Table 1. The paragraph mentions the terms “safety,” “comfort” and “convenience” but none of these terms occur in Table 1. Meanwhile, Table 1 includes many search terms, such as “Walkability,” “Older Adults” and “Physical Activity” that are not described in the narrative. The authors should re-write this section to correspond to the searches that were actually conducted, and the narrative and the table should correspond closely to each other. Several of the exclusion criteria do not seem to be necessary for exclusion. “Approached challenges and issues related to BEW development.” “Qualitatively discussed BEW concerning historical and current scenarios across various contexts, including sectoral, regional, national, international, etc.” Why would these be exclusion criteria? This is not obvious. With regard to Research Types, I am not clear on how Empirical Research is different from Analytical Research. Both seem to be empirical and statistical in nature. The discussion section is repetitive. The authors mention several times the potential benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need for more model advancement and model integration. This section can be condensed. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable References 1. Ravensbergen L, El-Geneidy A: Toward Evidence-Based Urban Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association . 2023; 89 (3): 389-398 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Travel Behavior, Urban Form, Pedestrians I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 14 Feb 2026 Akshatha Rao, Manipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback. The comments have been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, scope, and methodological transparency of the manuscript. All suggested revisions have been carefully incorporated. Our responses to each concern are provided below. This systematic literature review examines theoretical approaches to supportive environments for walking for older adults. Response: Thank you for the acknowledgement. The manuscript continues to retain this core objective, and subsequent revisions have aimed to enhance clarity in how theoretical approaches and supportive environments are framed and analyzed. 2. The authors’ approach to a systematic literature review is well documented, but confusing in some aspects. For example, the authors claim in the abstract to review themes such as safety, security, comfort, and convenience, but these terms and concepts are almost entirely absent from the paper. Response: This concern has been addressed by explicitly integrating the themes of safety, security, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics into the Introduction, Methods, Keywords, and Search Strategy sections. These dimensions are now consistently reflected in the manuscript narrative and in Table 1 to ensure alignment between the abstract and the main body of the paper. 3. The authors’ literature review framework is reasonable, in that they review papers with respect to the conceptual model employed, the research focus, and the research type, and they summarize the reviewed papers according to these dimensions. Yet many aspects of the review as written remain unclear or inadequately analyzed. Response: We appreciate this observation. Several sections, particularly the Research Focus, Quality Assessment, and Discussion , have been revised to improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and strengthen analytical depth. Definitions and structural explanations have been added where ambiguity previously existed. 4. This critique will start with big-picture issues and then delve into some more nuanced potential refinements. First, the framework of “BEW” or “Built Environment for Walking” seems to be inconsistent with what the authors find and discuss. The authors mention the importance of social environments and policy dynamics, so from the start the frame should be drawn much larger than the built environment. Perhaps built and social environments? The other term the authors use is “antecedents” which might be a good term, but if so the authors should use it more consistently and define it clearly. The term “antecedents” does not occur in any of the stated research questions. Response: The Introduction has been revised to define Built Environment for Walking (BEW) as an umbrella construct that includes physical, social, and policy-level dimensions . The term “antecedents” has now been clearly defined and explicitly incorporated into the research questions to ensure conceptual consistency throughout the manuscript. 5. The authors’ abstract suggests a comprehensive literature review of how urban design influences walking access and behavior for older adults. However, the authors have heavily focused on theoretical frameworks in their literature search, possibly filtering out empirical papers that are light on theory. I believe the authors’ contribution is still valuable, but the abstract should more accurately indicate the scope of the literature review conducted. Response: The abstract has been rewritten to more accurately reflect the manuscript’s emphasis on theoretical frameworks and conceptual models rather than a purely empirical urban design review. This ensures alignment between the stated scope and the actual methodological focus. 6. Systematic literature reviews generally include an evaluation of research quality. However, conventional evaluation criteria for research quality typically concern on quantitative analysis methods, such as research design, the presence of confounders, the use of blinding, the validation of data collection methods, and so forth (Ravensbergen and El-Geneidy, 2023) [Ref-1]. The authors are quite vague on their methods of evaluation for research quality. I would suggest that with the authors’ topical focus being on theoretical approaches and contributions, evaluation of research quality may not be relevant. Response: The Quality Assessment subsection has been clarified to explain that, due to the theoretical orientation of the review, quality evaluation emphasized conceptual clarity, theoretical relevance, and methodological transparency rather than statistical rigor alone. This aligns the evaluation criteria with the study’s objectives. 7. The authors mention that both “contribution type” and “research focus” are of interest. However, there is no description of different categories of contribution type. Are “contribution type” and “research focus” the same? At the bottom of page 8 the heading is “Contribution type” with no discussion of what this means. Then the following section is on “Research Focus” and identifies four types: 1) Model Development, 2) Model Testing, 3) Model Advancing, and 4) Model Integration. So it seems that a discussion of “Contribution Type” is missing or is perhaps synonymous with with “Research Focus.” Response: The manuscript has been revised to clarify that Research Focus represents the primary analytical classification, while “Contribution Type” is used descriptively rather than as a separate analytical category. Redundant or ambiguous headings have been refined to avoid conceptual overlap. 8. I found the section on the four different “Research Focuses” to be problematic. The four focuses, as I understand them, are Model Development, Model Testing, Model Advancement, and Model Integration.” After reading this section, I am still unclear on the differences. This section reads more like a miniature literature review rather than a conceptual section that defines what makes each of these foci different from each other. I am expecting to read brief definitions with perhaps one example. The goal should be for the reader to be able to tell when a paper falls in one category versus the other. After reading this section, I had no idea how a paper would be categorized into one of these foci. Response: Each research focus category (Model Development, Testing, Advancement, Integration) now begins with a concise conceptual definition before examples are presented. This restructuring improves reader comprehension and enables clearer categorization of studies. 9. In the results section on pages 11-12, the authors describe the different theories and characterize the publications falling under each theory type. What struck me is how similar the descriptions of the differing theories sounded. Several of them were described as “holistic” and several mentioned the effects of social, environmental, and individual factors on walking behaviors. Could the authors develop a framework that allows the reader to see the differences between these theoretical frameworks? Which frameworks cover topics or issues that are not covered by the others? Response: The Results section has been revised to emphasize distinctive theoretical emphases and reduce descriptive overlap. Each framework is now differentiated based on its primary analytical orientation (e.g., physical activity, ecological systems, participatory planning, neighbourhood social cohesion, or person–environment fit). 10. The lengthy paragraph on how far back the literature review should go back was not informative and lacked an empirical basis. For example, the claim “The SEMHP has had an ideal period of impact during the last 15-20 years” is not substantiated by data or a citation. The authors could establish a conventional time frame for their search (i.e. 20 years or 30 years) without including this paragraph. Or they could provide more evidence to support the claims in this paragraph. Response: The theory-specific time-range justification paragraph has been replaced with a standardized publication timeframe justification (2000–2023) grounded in methodological consistency, thereby removing unsupported claims. 11. The description of search terms that occurs in the second paragraph of page 5 does not correspond with the search terms actually employed in Table 1. The paragraph mentions the terms “safety,” “comfort” and “convenience” but none of these terms occur in Table 1. Meanwhile, Table 1 includes many search terms, such as “Walkability,” “Older Adults” and “Physical Activity” that are not described in the narrative. The authors should re-write this section to correspond to the searches that were actually conducted, and the narrative and the table should correspond closely to each other. Response: The search strategy section has been revised so that the narrative description and Table 1 correspond exactly . Keywords such as safety, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics are now consistently included in both the text and the table. 12. Several of the exclusion criteria do not seem to be necessary for exclusion. “Approached challenges and issues related to BEW development.” “Qualitatively discussed BEW concerning historical and current scenarios across various contexts, including sectoral, regional, national, international, etc.” Why would these be exclusion criteria? This is not obvious. Response: The exclusion criteria have been reworded to clarify that the review focuses on theory-driven analytical studies rather than purely descriptive or historical discussions. The rationale for exclusion is now explicitly stated. 13. With regard to Research Types, I am not clear on how Empirical Research is different from Analytical Research. Both seem to be empirical and statistical in nature. Response: The Research Type table has been revised to clarify that Empirical Research refers to primary data collection methods, whereas Analytical Research involves statistical modeling, secondary data analysis, or simulation-based approaches. 14. The discussion section is repetitive. The authors mention several times the potential benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need for more model advancement and model integration. This section can be condensed. Response: The Discussion section has been rewritten to reduce repetition, consolidate overlapping arguments, and improve thematic flow while maintaining analytical depth and future research direction clarity. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Merlin LA. Peer Review Report For: Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of older adults: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :229 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177260.r369024) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1#referee-response-369024 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Exploring antecedents of built environment...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Rao A and Nandineni RD'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229", templates : { twitter : "Exploring antecedents of built environment for walkability of.... Rao A and Nandineni RD, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-229/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/161255/177260") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "177260"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "369025": 0, "369024": 24, "370048": 0, "369027": 0, "369026": 0, "373005": 0, "373004": 0, "373007": 0, "373006": 0, "373003": 0, "373002": 0, "373009": 0, "373008": 0, "373011": 0, "373010": 0, "398118": 0, "398119": 0, "398116": 0, "398117": 0, "398114": 0, "398115": 0, "398112": 0, "398113": 0, "398120": 0, "398121": 0, "459447": 5, "370997": 0, "459446": 0, "370996": 0, "459445": 0, "370999": 0, "459444": 0, "370998": 0, "459443": 0, "459442": 0, "371005": 0, "371004": 0, "459451": 0, "371001": 0, "459450": 0, "371000": 0, "459449": 0, "371003": 0, "459448": 0, "371002": 0, "458562": 0, "458563": 0, "476527": 0, "407278": 0, "476526": 0, "407279": 0, "407276": 0, "407277": 0, "407274": 0, "407275": 13, "476535": 0, "476534": 0, "476533": 0, "370039": 0, "476532": 0, "476531": 0, "407282": 0, "476530": 0, "407283": 0, "476529": 0, "407280": 0, "476528": 0, "407281": 0, "370045": 0, "369021": 0, "369020": 0, "370044": 0, "369023": 0, "370047": 0, "369022": 0, "370046": 0, "370041": 0, "370040": 0, "369019": 0, "370043": 0, "369018": 0, "370042": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "80dc3400-5f14-4709-b90a-bb4e4ced1940"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });