Skip to main content
Download PDF

Meteorological gaps in audits of pedestrian environments: a scoping review

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 2010 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Weather and season are determinants of physical activity. Therefore, it is important to ensure built environments are designed to mitigate negative impacts of weather and season on pedestrians to prevent these losses. This scoping review aims to identify built environment audits of pedestrian environments developed for use during a specific weather condition or season. Secondly, this review aims to investigate gaps in the inclusion of relevant weather mitigating built environment features in pedestrian environment audit tools.

Methods

Following a standard protocol, a systematic search was executed in CINAHL, Medline and Web of Science to identify built environment audit tools of pedestrian spaces. These databases were chosen since they are well-known to comprehensively cover health as well as multi-disciplinary research publications relevant to health. Studies were screened, and data were extracted from selected documents by two independent reviewers (e.g., psychometric properties and audit items included). Audit items were screened for the inclusion of weather mitigating built environment features, and the tool’s capacity to measure temperature, precipitation, seasonal and sustainability impacts on pedestrians was calculated.

Results

The search returned 2823 documents. After screening and full text review, 27 articles were included. No tool was found that was developed specifically for use during a specific weather condition or season. Additionally, gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating items were found for all review dimensions (thermal comfort, precipitation, seasonal, and sustainability items). Poorly covered items were: (1) thermal comfort related (arctic entry presence, materials, textures, and colours of buildings, roads, sidewalk and furniture, and green design features); (2) precipitation related (drain presence, ditch presence, hazards, and snow removal features); (3) seasonal features (amenities, pedestrian scale lighting, and winter destinations and aesthetics); and (4) sustainability features (electric vehicle charging stations, renewable energy, car share, and bike share facilities).

Conclusions

Current built environment audit tools do not adequately include weather / season mitigating items. This is a limitation as it is important to investigate if the inclusion of these items in pedestrian spaces can promote physical activity during adverse weather conditions. Because climate change is causing increased extreme weather events, a need exists for the development of a new built environment audit tool that includes relevant weather mitigating features.

Peer Review reports

Background

It is well established that environmental conditions, including weather and seasonality, affect physical activity (PA) [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Temperature and PA have a non-linear relationship, with PA increasing with temperature until approximately 25–29 °C then decreasing again, with dramatic PA decreases above 40 °C [2, 7, 8]. In areas that receive high amounts of solar radiation (e.g., areas with limited shade) there can be further losses in PA during these hot days [9]. Additionally, prolonged precipitation (e.g., snow, rain) can also reduce both leisure PA and active transport [7, 10]. In older adults, snow and ice can be a large barrier to walking/wheeling leading to large decreases in PA during winter [11]. As global temperatures increase and severe weather conditions (e.g., precipitation events, drought) become more frequent [12], the negative impacts of environment on PA could become exacerbated [7]. This is of concern for public health since ~ 1/3 of the global population do not meet PA guidelines [13], contributing to an increased likelihood of death [14], and $67.5 billion in healthcare costs and productivity losses [15].

Though it is not possible to control the weather, and climate change impacts are already underway, outdoor areas can be adapted to protect against weather conditions [16]. Features of urban design have also been found to worsen extreme weather events. For example, the heat island effect is a phenomenon where urban areas become significantly hotter than air temperatures due to insufficient vegetation and construction materials that reflect the heat [17, 18]. To combat these issues and prepare for future climate changes, urban design and planning organizations have proposed and implemented features to modify local micro-climates and create urban spaces that might be cooler, hotter, or drier than surrounding areas [18,19,20,21].

Walking, cycling, and wheeling are among the most popular forms of PA [14], and heavily rely on supportive pedestrian streetscapes [4, 22, 23]. As weather and climate conditions change, and to mitigate further climate changes through promotion of active transportation modes like walking, it is increasingly important for urban design and planning to consider impact of weather on pedestrians. To understand the role of urban design features in promoting outdoor PA under various meteorological conditions and to address them adequately in different jurisdictions, it is necessary to measure the presence/extent/quality of these features in pedestrian environments [24]. However, the extent to which measures of the built and/or pedestrian environment address aspects of meteorological conditions is unknown. Recently, a few popular built environment audit tools [25] were scrutinized for their inability to adequately measure winter features of pedestrian built environments [26]. Thus, there is an urgent need for consistent and comprehensive assessment tools for the capacity of pedestrian spaces to mitigate impacts of weather and seasonality on pedestrians and their PA.

This paper presents a comprehensive scoping review to identify audit tools designed for use during specific seasons or weather conditions. Additionally, those tools not specifically designed for season or weather condition, were assessed for their inclusion of built environment features that might mitigate impacts of weather and seasons on pedestrians (e.g., vegetation, building overhangs, winter aesthetics, transit availability).

Methods

This scoping review was conducted following the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley [27], the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidelines [28], and the JBI systematic review of measurement properties [29]. The protocol can be found in Open Science Framework (OSF) and was publicly released through registration with the OSF platform (https://osf.io/xytwv) [30]. To ensure the quality of this review, we referred to the methodological guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (Fig. 1) [31].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Prisma reporting guidelines for scoping review created using PRISMA2020 [32]

Full size image

Search strategy

Search terms and strategy were developed in consultation with a research librarian and in accordance with the PCC (population, concept, context) criteria [33]. Population was determined to be any user of a pedestrian environment and the context was open. Initially, the concept was tools specifically designed for or including weather/season-related built environment features. An initial search was conducted with terms from the concepts, audit tools, pedestrian environment, and meteorological factors. However, no such tools were found in peer-reviewed literature. Thus, the research question was changed to “what are the gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating built environment features in audit tools, regardless of if they were developed for a specific meteorological condition” from “investigate gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating built environment in audit tools which consider environmental conditions in their tool”. The context was updated to be any audit tools developed to investigate impacts of the built environment on pedestrian locomotion, and search terms associated with the concept “meteorological factors” were removed from the search. Eligible studies needed to be a methodological paper discussing development, reliability, or validity of a built environment audit tool for pedestrian environments and published in English. Excluded studies did not include built environment elements, were audit tools that were abbreviated versions of prior tools or were of unavailable audit tools.

A literature search was conducted in CINAHL, Medline, and Web of Science. Additional file 1 contains the search strings. Retrieved studies were gathered in RAYYAN online platform to eliminate duplicate and irrelevant references [34]. After this initial process, the remaining publications were transferred to COVIDENCE web-based platform for study screening and data extraction [35].

Study selection and data extraction

Prior to screening, pilot testing was conducted to ensure high inter-rater agreement between reviewers. Title and abstract pilot screening was conducted by the first reviewer (PS) and a random second reviewer (either AW, FB, or SN). A random sample of 20 studies were screened and PS obtained high agreement with FB (kappa = 1) and SN (kappa = 0.9), and low agreement with AW (kappa = 0.3). Discrepancies between AW and PS were discussed with the reviewing team and with the third reviewer (HD) until consensus was reached. After pilot testing, two random reviewers (either PS, AW, FB, SN) subsequently assessed reference titles and abstracts. Disagreements were resolved with the assistance of an independent third reviewer (HD). Relevant articles were selected for full text screening. At this stage, each full text was evaluated based on the exclusion criteria by two random reviewers (either PS, FB or SN) with conflicts resolved by HD. Finally, included studies were hand searched by PS and any additional studies that met inclusion criteria were included for data extraction.

From the selected studies, data were extracted for psychometric properties of audit tools, including number of built environment items, and reliability and validity testing results. Audit tool characteristics were also extracted including country of development, tool dimensions, and whether the tool was developed specifically for a certain season or weather condition. Next, items included in audit tools were extracted.

To assess the existence of weather/seasonal limitations in audit tools, a list of built environment items that could either mitigate negative effects of weather on pedestrians or promote pedestrian locomotion was compiled after an extensive literature search conducted by the authors. The items were compiled into the following dimensions: temperature (e.g., building material, vegetation), precipitation (e.g., gutters, building overhangs), season (e.g., winter destinations, winter aesthetics), and sustainability (e.g., transit availability).

Synthesis of findings

Percentages for the inclusion of specific items within each dimension were calculated by dividing the number of audit tools that included a particular item by the total number of audit tools assessed. To compare differences in the inclusion of meteorological items across the included audit tools, capability appraisals for each meteorological dimension were calculated [36] then visualized with a heatmap created through ggplot2 in R (version 4.0.1) [37, 38].

Results

The initial search returned 2823 documents. After removing duplicates, 2575 documents remained for title and abstract screening; of these, 75 were reviewed in full text. Ultimately, 19 studies from this primary search were included. Citation searches of included studies identified 8 additional documents, which resulted in a total of 27 included studies spanning from 2002 to 2020 (Fig. 1). Though many studies conducted reliability testing on their tool, few (29.63%) discussed the validity.

The length of the items included in the audit tools varied from the smallest number of items included in the sidewalk assessment tool (n = 5 items) to large audits that contain up to 191 items (iCHART). There was not a large variation in country of development with most tools (57.69%) being developed in the United States (Table 1). Within the United States, tools were developed across many different regions with varying weather-related concerns. No tool was designed specifically for a certain meteorological condition or season. Furthermore, no audit tool considered meteorological factors specifically to be a dimension.

Table 1 General characteristics of included audit tools identified from selected studies
Full size table

Gaps in meteorological audit tools

In general, urban design elements to mitigate adverse effects of temperature, precipitation, and seasonal variations, as well as sustainability features to counter future climate change, were not well covered in existing pedestrian environment audits. Most tools included at least one of the items for each category. Every tool included at least one temperature related item, 26 tools included at least one precipitation item, 23 tools included at least one seasonal item, and 21 tools included at least one sustainability item (Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5). Overall, sustainability and seasonal categories exhibited the most extensive coverage, with an average inclusion rate across audit tools of 27.16% and 25.31%, respectively (Fig. 2). Conversely, temperature and precipitation categories had the lowest coverage, averaging 17.49% and 16.3%, respectively, across audit tools (Fig. 2). Among the audit tools assessed, the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS) global contained the highest number of items, encompassing 30.43% of the possible 69 meteorological items, while the Revised Residential Environment Assessment Tool (REAT 2.0) had the lowest number of items, covering just 4.35% of the potential items (Fig. 2).

Table 2 Inclusion of environmental features that might alter the thermal comfort of pedestrians in audit tools developed to assess pedestrian environments
Full size table
Table 3 Inclusion of environmental features that may mitigate the negative impact of precipitation on pedestrians in audit tools developed to assess pedestrian environments
Full size table
Table 4 Inclusion of seasonal items that might impact pedestrian PA in audit tools developed to assess pedestrian environments
Full size table
Table 5 Inclusion of sustainability items that might impact pedestrian PA in audit tools developed to assess pedestrian environments
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Heatmap showing the percentage of included weather category items in built environment audit tools

Full size image

Pedestrian environment audit tools included 2.78% (Workplace Walkability Audit Tool, WWAT) – 27.78% (Pedestrian Environmental Data Scan, PEDS) of temperature-related items (Fig. 2). Certain items had high coverage within tools such as “indoor public spaces” (74%), “the presence of trees” (93%), and the “existence of maintained green spaces” (85%), all of which were featured in nearly all audit tools (Table 2). Items such as shade coverage (41%), the presence of natural green spaces (48%), natural blue spaces (48%), grass (48%), shrubs (30%), building height (22%), and sidewalk material (33%) received moderate coverage (Table 2). Certain items were rarely covered, with only MAPS global including them, such as direct cooling, direct heating, and roadway material. Moreover, several temperature-related items were completely absent from all audit tools, including the presence of an arctic entry/vestibule, furniture material, colours of sidewalks, roads, buildings, and furniture, textures of sidewalks, roads, buildings, and furniture, as well as the presence of blue or green roofs or walls and built shade structures (Table 2).

Precipitation was the least covered category by audit tools with an average coverage of 16% (Fig. 2), most covered by MAPS (40%) and least covered by REAT 2.0 (0%) (Fig. 2). The most included item was the presence of a buffer zone, which was included in 81% of audits. Moderately covered items included sidewalk width (59%), covered walkways (30%), presence of a transit shelter (33%), and building overhangs (22%) (Table 3). In some audit tools, the items puddle presence (11%), snow maintenance (11%), ice maintenance (11%), gutter presence (11%), drain presence (15%), drainage ditch presence (15%), parking ban (7%), bike lane width (7%), and aligned curb cuts (11%) were included (Table 3).

Seasonal items were more frequently covered than temperature or precipitation items with 27% of items being included in audit tools on average (Fig. 2). The tool that included the most seasonal items was the MAPS-Global, which included four seasonal items (summer destinations, seasonal amenities, lighting, and pedestrian scale lighting) (Fig. 2; Table 4). The audits that contained the least number of items were the WWAT, Sidewalk Assessment Tool (SAT), REAT 2.0, and the China Urban Built Environment Scan Tool (CUBEST) (Fig. 2). The highest covered item was the presence of lighting, which was included in 81% of tools, followed by the inclusion of summer destinations which was included in 48% of tools. The remaining items were much less considered. Seasonal amenities (19%) and pedestrian scale lighting (15%) were considered in some audits, while winter destinations and aesthetics were never included (Table 4).

On average across tools, sustainability items had 25% coverage (Fig. 2). MAPS-Global included the most features including all items except for “electric vehicle charging stations” and “renewable energy”, both of which were not covered by any tool (Fig. 2; Table 5). Tools with the lowest coverage in this category were REAT 2.0, School Walkability Index (SWI), SAT, and WWAT, which did not include any of the possible sustainability items (Fig. 2). The remaining tools covered at least one to three sustainability items. The most well-covered sustainability items included transit access (74%) and bike lanes (67%), whereas car or bike share facilities were rarely included (4% and 7%, respectively) (Table 5).

Discussion

This scoping review had two primary aims: (1) to investigate whether any built environment audit tools were specifically developed for use during a specific season or weather condition, and (2) to investigate gaps in the inclusion of weather mitigating items within built environment audit tools, regardless of whether they were developed for a specific meteorological condition. No peer-reviewed pedestrian environment audit tools developed for use during specific weather conditions or seasons were identified. Moreover, and consistent with previous findings [83], no existing tool considered weather or season as dimensions within their audit (Table 1). Despite the absence of peer-reviewed audit tools, a non-peer-reviewed community-based audit tool called the Snow Mole audit has been developed by the Council on Aging of Ottawa [84]. It is a volunteer-driven initiative aimed at assessing the safety of Ottawa’s sidewalks during winter and includes nine dichotomous items, such as the presence of ice and snow on sidewalks, handrails, and snowbanks [84]. While this questionnaire represents progress in measuring the accessibility of winter pedestrian environments, it lacks items related to winter destinations (e.g., skating rinks, ski hills), aesthetics (e.g., ice castles), or heating features (e.g., fireplaces, shelters) that may also be essential for encouraging pedestrian use [85]. Additionally, the checklist only assesses the presence or absence of winter features, rather than their extent. This limitation is significant since both researchers and built environment policy advocates require a detailed, systematic, reliable, and valid audit tool [48].

Inclusion of features for meteorological mitigation associated with other domains

General built environment audit tools lack the capability to measure the impact of environmental features that could mitigate the negative effects of weather and seasons on pedestrians, with most tools (92.6%) capturing less than 33% of items in any dimension (temperature, precipitation, season, or sustainability). However, certain indicators are well-incorporated within audit tools, such as the presence of trees, lighting, and indoor public spaces. Other indicators, such as winter destinations and building colours, are rarely, if ever, considered (Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5).

One explanation for the high coverage of certain meteorological indicators may be their association with other physical activity domains. For instance, indoor public spaces typically fall under the land use dimension, which is associated with increased active transport [83, 86, 87]. Similarly, the presence of maintained green spaces falls under the dimension of access to recreational facilities and is associated with lower risk for obesity [83, 88]. Lighting is associated with safety dimensions as it is found to reduce crime, therefore indirectly increasing walking behavior, albeit with mixed evidence [83, 89]. Finally, the presence of a buffer zone typically falls under sidewalk or safety, providing a barrier separating pedestrians from cars [83, 90]. An exception is the well-covered item “presence of trees,” frequently used to assess the level of shade on sidewalks (thereby reducing temperature). The high coverage of certain meteorological mitigation items that overlap with other audit domains may indicate their inclusion is likely not due to meteorological reasons but, rather, with their association in other domains. Further research could explore assumed meanings by auditors using each tool to ensure valid interpretation of survey items.

Gaps in features for thermal comfort

Features of the built environment can significantly influence the local microclimate and amount of solar radiation an area receives which can either increase or decrease thermal comfort [16, 18, 91]. Vegetation, for instance, plays a substantial role in reducing microclimate temperatures through evapotranspiration [21, 71, 74]. Building morphology can also reduce microclimate temperatures through the creation of wind tunnel [92]. Morphology can also impact the amount of solar radiation in a given area, for example, high density streets with buildings that have a high height to width ratio decrease the portion of visible sky above an area (sky view factor) thus decreasing the solar radiation of an area which can increase thermal comfort [91]. Additionally, albedo (a product of material, colour, and texture) or built structures can alter street temperatures [18, 21, 67, 71]. Objects with lower albedo tend to absorb more solar radiation, while those with high albedo reflect a significant amount of radiation; therefore, designing streets with high albedo objects can result in lower temperatures compared to streets designed with low albedo structures. Although the presence of green spaces and vegetation is moderately covered in built environment assessments, this focus is likely due to their association with various walkability aspects such as aesthetics. Surprisingly, these assessments seldom include considerations of built features that can directly influence street temperatures and solar radiation.

Similarly, features intentionally designed to reduce street temperatures, such as blue and green roofs and walls, which operate by promoting cooling through evaporation, are almost never incorporated in audit tools. Beyond passive mechanisms to alter temperature, an alternate approach is to include features that directly heat or cool pedestrian spaces [19, 64, 65]. Again, these features were rarely considered. This observation provides further evidence that current audit tools are not considering weather impacts in their audits and highlights a noticeable gap: failure to account for features that could directly impact the temperature of street environments. This is an important feature to consider since PA decreases considerably during times of high temperatures [7].

Gaps in features to protect against precipitation

To protect pedestrians from the negative impacts of precipitation, pedestrians need protection from overhead rain or snow, and the presence of water, snow, or ice on sidewalks [20, 93]. While there is moderate coverage of items in the audit tools that can protect pedestrians from overhead rain or snow, there is limited consideration of the impact of precipitation on sidewalk maintenance or the management of these hazards. Precipitation hazards can be prevented through urban design features, such as runoff management features or, in the case of ice and snow, can be managed through city snow clearing policies [72, 93]. For rain (and snowmelt), preventive measures can include features that channel water away from the sidewalk (e.g., gutters, drains, bioswales) or permeable pavements, allowing precipitation to filter through the pavement and into a drainage system below [72]. The buildup of snow and ice can be prevented with heated sidewalks to melt the snow, or managed with snow removal aided by features such as sidewalk width and aligned curb cuts [19, 94]. Along with limited inclusion of prevention/management of hazards, audits also rarely include items assessing presence of precipitation hazards on sidewalks. These limitations together represent a significant gap in audit tools as individuals with reduced mobility can face substantial barriers to PA due to presence of ice, snow, or puddles on sidewalks [93].

Gaps in winter features

PA is often at its lowest during winter months [2, 95]; therefore, it is especially important for cities in cold regions to employ design features to prevent this drop in activity. The winter city movement is aimed at increasing livability in winter cities, primarily through increased use of outdoor public spaces by inhabitants [96]. Proponents recommend features such as increased lighting, winter-specific aesthetics (e.g., snow art), and destinations to increase use of these spaces [69, 96]. Interventions where winter destinations and aesthetic areas were implemented have found increases in pedestrian engagement with the built environment [78]. The lack of inclusion of winter destinations, aesthetics, and lighting paired with limited inclusion of precipitation and temperature features all point to inability in current audit tools to measure winter pedestrian spaces.

Recommendations

Given the substantial impact of weather and season on PA [2,3,4,5,6], the lack of inclusion of features that could mitigate this in existing audit tools is a substantial gap. This issue may be less critical in regions with generally mild temperatures throughout the year and brief precipitation events. However, in areas with extended winter seasons, extreme heat, or prolonged periods of rain, this becomes a significant issue. Therefore, it is imperative to develop built environment audit tools to measure presence and extent of features that can mitigate weather’s negative impacts on pedestrians. This review specifically identifies the need for a winter-specific audit tool for cold regions, a rain audit tool for rainy regions, and general inclusion of built features that alter microclimates in audits, as areas worldwide experience continued climate change.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the list of meteorological indicators is by no means exhaustive and was compiled by the authors based on a preliminary scan of the literature; therefore, it may be lacking in the inclusion of urban design features that are important in mitigating the impact of weather or season on pedestrians. Second, grey literature was not included in the search, and this review may not provide a complete picture of meteorological mitigating features in audit tools.

Conclusions

This study identified significant gaps in existing built environment audit tools, none of which were specifically designed to address the impacts of different weather conditions and seasons. These gaps, which include inadequate measures for temperature regulation, precipitation management, seasonal features, and sustainability, represent a critical need for tools that more comprehensively assess how urban design influences pedestrian activity and comfort.

Future research should focus on developing such comprehensive or complementary audit tools that integrate weather and season-specific features. These tools should incorporate assessments for temperature regulation, such as green roofs, shaded walkways, and materials with high albedo; effective precipitation management such as advanced drainage systems and permeable pavements; enhanced seasonal usability of amenities designed for winter and summer use; and sustainability measures like renewable energy sources, electric vehicle charging stations, and sustainable transportation.

By addressing these areas, future research can be used to develop tools to improve the comprehensiveness of assessments of pedestrian environments that fully address today’s health and climate priorities. Such assessments in turn can be used to foster urban space improvements to promote physical activity, and resilience against climate change. This review marks an important step in identifying the meteorological gaps in current built environment audit tools, demonstrating needed advancements to fully address our environments for human health and environmental sustainability.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

PA:

Physical Activity

SAT:

Sidewalk Assessment Tool

PEDS:

Pedestrian Environmental Data Scan

AAT:

St. Louis Analytic Audit Tool

SPACES:

Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan

WWAT:

Workplace Walkability Audit Tool

IMI:

Irvine Minnesota Inventory

ANC:

Active Neighbourhood Checklist

SWEAT-R:

Revised Senior Walking Environmental Assessment Tool

TCOPPE:

School Environment Audit Tool

MAPS:

Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes

REPA:

The Rural Pedestrian Environmental Audit Instrument

WASABE:

Wisconsin Assessment of the Social and Built Environment

M-SPACES:

Madrid Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environment Scan

REAT-2.0:

Revised Residential Environment Assessment Tool

iCHART:

Community Health Assessment in Rural Towns

OPECR:

Older People's Environments and CVD Rick

PIN3:

Pregnancy, Infection, Nutrition Environnemental Audit

CANVAS:

Computer Assisted Neighbourhood Visual Assessment System

PRESH:

Pittsburgh Hill/Homewood Research on Neighbourhood Change and Health

S-VAT:

SPOTLIGHT Virtual Audit Tool

CUBEST:

China Urban Built Environment Scan Tool

SWI:

School Walkability Index

References

  1. Jiang Q, Francis SL, Chapman-Novakofski KM, Wilt M, Carbone ET, Cohen NL. Perceived environmental supports for fruit and vegetable consumption among older adults in the US. Nutr Health. 2021;27:309–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tucker P, Gilliland J. The effect of season and weather on physical activity: a systematic review. Public Health. 2007;121:909–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Turrisi TB, Bittel KM, West AB, Hojjatinia S, Hojjatinia S, Mama SK, et al. Seasons, weather, and device-measured movement behaviors: a scoping review from 2006 to 2020. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18:24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wendel-Vos W, Droomers M, Kremers S, Brug J, Van Lenthe F. Potential environmental determinants of physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2007;8:425–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zheng C, Feng J, Huang W, Wong SH-S. Associations between weather conditions and physical activity and sedentary time in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Place. 2021;69:102546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carson V, Spence JC. Seasonal variation in physical activity among children and adolescents: a review. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2010;22:81–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bernard P, Chevance G, Kingsbury C, Baillot A, Romain A-J, Molinier V, et al. Climate change, physical activity and sport: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2021;51:1041–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lewis LK, Maher C, Belanger K, Tremblay M, Chaput J-P, Olds T. At the mercy of the gods: associations between weather, physical activity, and sedentary time in children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2016;28:152–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim Y, Brown R. Effect of meteorological conditions on leisure walking: a time series analysis and the application of outdoor thermal comfort indexes. Int J Biometeorol. 2022;66:1109–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Böcker L, Dijst M, Prillwitz J. Impact of everyday weather on individual daily travel behaviours in perspective: a literature review. Transp Rev. 2013;33:71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke P, Hirsch JA, Melendez R, Winters M, Gould JS, Ashe M, et al. Snow and rain modify neighbourhood walkability for older adults. Can J Aging Rev Can Vieil. 2017;36:159–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Belesova K, Boykoff M, et al. The 2019 report of the Lancet countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. Lancet. 2019;394:1836–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, Borodulin K, Buman MP, Cardon G, et al. World health organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:1451–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. WHO. Physical activity. 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity. Cited 2023 Oct 11 .

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, Finkelstein EA, Katzmarzyk PT, van Mechelen W, et al. The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet Lond Engl. 2016;388:1311–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brown RD. Ameliorating the effects of climate change: modifying microclimates through design. Landsc Urban Plan. 2011;100:372–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamstead Z, Coseo P. Building policies, plans, and cities to manage extreme weather events: Perspectives from urban planning and landscape architecture. In: Smith KH, Ram PK, editors. Transform glob health interdiscip chall perspect strateg. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 261–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32112-3_17. Cited 2023 Oct 13.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Rizwan AM, Dennis LYC, Liu C. A review on the generation, determination and mitigation of Urban Heat Island. J Environ Sci. 2008;20:120–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. City of Edmonton. Winter design guidelines. Edmonton: City of Edmonton; 2016. Available from: https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/initiatives_innovation/winter-design-guidelines. Cited 2023 Oct 13.

  20. Life Between Umbrellas. Rain Friendly Principles. City of Vancouver. 2019. Available from: https://www.lifebetweenumbrellas.ca/rain-friendly-principles.

  21. Nasrollahi N, Ghosouri A, Khodakarami J, Taleghani M. Heat-mitigation strategies to improve pedestrian thermal comfort in urban environments: a review. Sustainability. 2020;12:10000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cain KL, Millstein RA, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Gavand KA, Frank LD, et al. Contribution of streetscape audits to explanation of physical activity in four age groups based on the microscale audit of pedestrian streetscapes (MAPS). Soc Sci Med. 2014;116:82–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Stearns JA, Avedzi HM, Yim D, Spence JC, Labbaf F, Lamboglia CG, et al. An umbrella review of the best and most up-to-date evidence on the built environment and physical activity in older adults ≥ 60 years. Public Health Rev. 2023;44:1605474.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ball K, Timperio AF, Crawford DA. Understanding environmental influences on nutrition and physical activity behaviors: where should we look and what should we count? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;3:33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Haselwandter EM, Corcoran MP, Folta SC, Hyatt R, Fenton M, Nelson ME. The built environment, physical activity, and aging in the United States: a state of the science review. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23:323–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Curtis B. Walkability audits in winter cities: planning for a healthier Canada. 2017. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1993/32813. Cited 2023 Nov 6.

  27. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Man Evid Synth. JBI; 2020. Available from:  https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4687342/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews. Cited 2023 Oct 12.

  29. Stephenson M, Riitano D, Wilson S, Leonardi-Bee J, Mabire C, Cooper K et al. Chapter 12: Systematic reviews of measurement properties. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Man Evid Synth. JBI; 2020. Available from: https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4686202/Chapter+12%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+measurement+properties. Cited 2023 Oct 12.

  30. Foster ED, Deardorff A. Open Science Framework (OSF). J Med Libr Assoc JMLA. 2017;105:203–6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and open synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18:e1230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne; 2023. Available from: https://www.covidence.org.

  36. Aghaabbasi M, Moeinaddini M, Zaly Shah M, Asadi-Shekari Z, Arjomand Kermani M. Evaluating the capability of walkability audit tools for assessing sidewalks. Sustain Cities Soc. 2018;37:475–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wickham H. ggplot2. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4. Cited 2023 Jul 27.

  38. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/. Cited 2023 Oct 2.

  39. Williams JE, Evans M, Kirtland KA, Cavnar MM, Sharpe PA, Neet MJ, et al. Development and use of a tool for assessing sidewalk maintenance as an environmental support of physical activity. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6:81–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Clifton KJ, Livi Smith AD, Rodriguez D. The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landsc Urban Plan. 2007;80:95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Brownson R, Hoehner C, Brennan L, Cook R, Elliott M, McMullen K. Reliability of two instruments for auditing the environment for physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2004;1(3):191–208.

  42. Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1693–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dannenberg AL, Cramer TW, Gibson CJ. Assessing the walkability of the workplace: a new audit tool. Am J Health Promot AJHP. 2005;20:39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Boarnet MG, Day K, Alfonzo M, Forsyth A, Oakes M. The irvine–minnesota inventory to measure built environments: reliability tests. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:153-e15943.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hoehner CM, Ivy A, Ramirez LKB, Handy S, Brownson RC. Active neighborhood checklist: a user-friendly and reliable tool for assessing activity friendliness. Am J Health Promot AJHP. 2007;21:534–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Michael YL, Keast EM, Chaudhury H, Day K, Mahmood A, Sarte AFI. Revising the senior walking environmental assessment tool. Prev Med. 2009;48:247–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee C, Kim HJ, Dowdy DM, Hoelscher DM, Ory MG. TCOPPE school environmental audit tool: assessing safety and walkability of school environments. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10:949–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Millstein RA, Cain KL, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Geremia C, Frank LD, et al. Development, scoring, and reliability of the microscale audit of pedestrian streetscapes (MAPS). BMC Public Health. 2013;13:403.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Scanlin K, Haardoerfer R, Kegler MC, Glanz K. Development of a pedestrian audit tool to assess rural neighborhood walkability. J Phys Act Health. 2014;11:1085–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Malecki KC, Engelman CD, Peppard PE, Nieto FJ, Grabow ML, Bernardinello M, et al. The Wisconsin Assessment of the social and built environment (WASABE): a multi-dimensional objective audit instrument for examining neighborhood effects on health. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1165.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Gullón P, Badland HM, Alfayate S, Bilal U, Escobar F, Cebrecos A, et al. Assessing walking and cycling environments in the streets of Madrid: comparing on-field and virtual audits. J Urban Health Bull N Y Acad Med. 2015;92:923–39.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vanwolleghem G, Ghekiere A, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, D’Haese S, Geremia CM, et al. Using an audit tool (MAPS Global) to assess the characteristics of the physical environment related to walking for transport in youth: reliability of Belgian data. Int J Health Geogr. 2016;15:41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Poortinga W, Calve T, Jones N, Lannon S, Rees T, Rodgers SE, et al. Neighborhood quality and attachment: validation of the revised residential environment assessment tool. Environ Behav. 2017;49:255–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Seguin RA, Lo BK, Sriram U, Connor LM, Totta A. Development and testing of a community audit tool to assess rural built environments: inventories for community health assessment in rural towns. Prev Med Rep. 2017;7:169.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Pliakas T, Hawkesworth S, Silverwood RJ, Nanchahal K, Grundy C, Armstrong B, et al. Optimising measurement of health-related characteristics of the built environment: comparing data collected by foot-based street audits, virtual street audits and routine secondary data sources. Health Place. 2017;43:75–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Porter AK, Wen F, Herring AH, Rodríguez DA, Messer LC, Laraia BA, et al. Reliability and one-year stability of the PIN3 neighborhood environmental audit in urban and rural neighborhoods. J Urban Health Bull N Y Acad Med. 2018;95:431–9.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mooney SJ, Wheeler-Martin K, Fiedler LM, LaBelle CM, Lampe T, Ratanatharathorn A, et al. Development and validation of a google street view pedestrian safety audit tool. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2020;31:301–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lee S, Lee C, Nam JW, Abbey-Lambertz M, Mendoza JA. School walkability index: application of environmental audit tool and GIS. J Transp Health. 2020;18:100880.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Bethlehem JR, Mackenbach JD, Ben-Rebah M, Compernolle S, Glonti K, Bárdos H, et al. The SPOTLIGHT virtual audit tool: a valid and reliable tool to assess obesogenic characteristics of the built environment. Int J Health Geogr. 2014;13:52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Andersen OK, O’Halloran SA, Kolle E, Lien N, Lakerveld J, Arah OA, et al. Adapting the SPOTLIGHT virtual audit Tool to assess food and activity environments relevant for adolescents: a validity and reliability study. Int J Health Geogr. 2021;20:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Griew P, Hillsdon M, Foster C, Coombes E, Jones A, Wilkinson P. Developing and testing a street audit tool using Google Street View to measure environmental supportiveness for physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:103.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Su M, Du Y, Liu Q, Ren Y, Kawachi I, Lv J, et al. Objective assessment of urban built environment related to physical activity — development, reliability and validity of the China Urban built Environment scan Tool (CUBEST). BMC Public Health. 2014;14:109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Quintas R, Raggi A, Bucciarelli P, Franco MG, Andreotti A, Caballero FF, et al. The COURAGE built environment outdoor checklist: an objective built environment instrument to investigate the impact of the environment on health and disability. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2014;21:204–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Vanos JK, Herdt AJ, Lochbaum MR. Effects of physical activity and shade on the heat balance and thermal perceptions of children in a playground microclimate. Build Environ. 2017;126:119–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Yuen B, Chor CH. Pedestrian streets in Singapore. Transportation. 1998;25:225–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wei R, Song D, Wong NH, Martin M. Impact of urban morphology parameters on Microclimate. Procedia Eng. 2016;169:142–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Salata F, Golasi I, Vollaro A, de Vollaro L. How high albedo and traditional buildings’ materials and vegetation affect the quality of urban microclimate. A case study. Energy Build. 2015;99:32–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Chan YH. Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singap Med J. 2003;44:614–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Pressman NEP. Sustainable winter cities: future directions for planning, policy and design. Atmos Environ. 1996;30:521–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Housing for Health. Healthy Community Guidelines. University of Alberta. 2023. Available from: https://www.ualberta.ca/department-of-medicine/divisions/preventive-medicine/housing-for-health/healthy-community-guidelines.html.

  71. Chatzidimitriou A, Yannas S. Microclimate development in open urban spaces: the influence of form and materials. Energy Build. 2015;108:156–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Xu J, Dai J, Wu X, Wu S, Zhang Y, Wang F, et al. Urban rainwater utilization: a review of management modes and harvesting systems. Front Environ Sci. 2023;11. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1025665. Cited 2023 Oct 16.

  73. Li Z, Zhang H, Juan Y-H, Wen C-Y, Yang A-S. Effects of building setback on thermal comfort and air quality in the street canyon. Build Environ. 2022;208:108627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Cheung PK, Jim CY. Effects of urban and landscape elements on air temperature in a high-density subtropical city. Build Environ. 2019;164:106362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Manteghi G, Lamit H, Ossen DR. Water bodies and urban microclimate: A review. Mod Appl Sci. 2015;9:1–12.

  76. Schepers P, den Brinker B, Methorst R, Helbich M. Pedestrian falls: a review of the literature and future research directions. J Saf Res. 2017;62:227–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Mariano C, Marino M. Urban planning for climate change: a toolkit of actions for an integrated strategy of adaptation to heavy rains, river floods, and sea level rise. Urban Sci. 2022;6:63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Roemmich JN, Johnson L. Seasonal alterations in park visitation, amenity use, and physical activity — grand forks, North Dakota, 2012–2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E155.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Cohen DA, Han B, Williamson S, Nagel C, McKenzie TL, Evenson KR, et al. Playground features and physical activity in U.S. neighborhood parks. Prev Med. 2020;131:105945.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Massey H, Gorczynski P, Harper CM, Sansom L, McEwan K, Yankouskaya A, et al. Perceived impact of outdoor swimming on health: web-based survey. Interact J Med Res. 2022;11:e25589.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Paukaeva AA, Setoguchi T, Luchkova VI, Watanabe N, Sato H. Impacts of the temporary urban design on the people’s behavior - the case study on the winter city Khabarovsk, Russia. Cities. 2021;117:103303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Kenworthy JR. The eco-city: ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environ Urban. 2006;18:67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Nickelson J, Wang AR, Mitchell QP, Hendricks K, Paschal A. Inventory of the physical environment domains and subdomains measured by neighborhood audit tools: a systematic literature review. J Environ Psychol. 2013;36:179–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. The Council on Aging of Ottawa. 2022 Snow mole report: how safe is winter walking in Ottawa?. Ottawa; 2022. Available from: http://coaottawa.ca/2022-snow-mole-report-how-safe-is-winter-walking-in-ottawa/.

  85. McGavock J, Brunton N, Klaprat N, Swanson A, Pancoe D, Manley E, et al. Walking on water—a natural experiment of a population health intervention to promote physical activity after the winter holidays. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:3627.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Cervero R, Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 1997;2:199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Saelens BE, Handy SL. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:S550-66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Papas MA, Alberg AJ, Ewing R, Helzlsouer KJ, Gary TL, Klassen AC. The built environment and obesity. Epidemiol Rev. 2007;29:129–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Foster S, Giles-Corti B. The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical activity: an exploration of inconsistent findings. Prev Med. 2008;47:241–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Landais LL, Damman OC, Schoonmade LJ, Timmermans DRM, Verhagen EALM, Jelsma JGM. Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17:47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Kim YJ, Brown RD. A multilevel approach for assessing the effects of microclimatic urban design on pedestrian thermal comfort: the high line in New York. Build Environ. 2021;205:108244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Norouziasas A, Pilehchi Ha P, Ahmadi M, Rijal HB. Evaluation of urban form influence on pedestrians’ wind comfort. Build Environ. 2022;224:109522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Ripat J, Sibley KM, Giesbrecht E, Curtis B, Touchette A, Borisoff J, et al. Winter mobility and community participation among people who use mobility devices: a scoping review. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2020;2:100018.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Antoshkina A, Shmeleva IA. Smart solutions for implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Arctic Cities. Digit Transform Glob Soc. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 301–15. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-65218-0_23. Cited 2023 Oct 23.

  95. Carlson SA, Whitfield GP, Peterson EL, Ussery EN, Watson KB, Berrigan D, et al. Geographic and Urban–Rural differences in walking for leisure and transportation. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55:887–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Stout M, Collins D, Stadler SL, Soans R, Sanborn E, Summers RJ. Celebrated, not just endured rethinking Winter Cities. Geogr Compass. 2018;12:e12379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Janice Kung for her assistance in designing the search strategy for this review.

Funding

This manuscript was supported by funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada awarded to Dr. Karen K. Lee as Principal Investigator and Dr. John C. Spence as Co-Investigator at the University of Alberta.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Housing for Health, Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    H. F Drapeau, P. Singh, F. Benyaminov, K. Wright, S. Nuzhat, A. Walsh, K. Islam, Z. Azarm & K. K. Lee

  2. Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    J. C. Spence

Authors
  1. H. F Drapeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Benyaminov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. C. Spence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Nuzhat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. K. Islam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Z. Azarm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. K. K. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HD and KKL conceptualized the study. Then, HD created the data extraction form, conducted the analysis, and drafted the manuscript. PS and HD developed the protocol for the study. PS designed and executed the systematic search. PS, FB, AW, SN, and HD conducted the screening of articles and data extraction. HD, PS, FB, KI, and ZA created the list of meteorologically mitigating built environment factors. KKL, JCS, and KW provided critical reviews of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the revision of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. K. Lee.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Dr. Karen Lee occasionally receives invitations to serve as a keynote speaker at conferences, where she is offered an honorarium. Dr. Lee is also author of Fit Cities on which she receives royalties for book sales.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drapeau, H., Singh, P., Benyaminov, F. et al. Meteorological gaps in audits of pedestrian environments: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 24, 2010 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19441-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19441-6

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us