20-minute neighbourhoods don’t increase recreational walking

’20-minute neighbourhoods’ are an attempt to provide the majority of an individual’s needs (groceries, leisure) within a twenty-minute walk of their residence. A further priority is the establishment of safe cycling and public transportation between these neighbourhoods and key employment hubs. Cities like Portland, USA, and Melbourne, AUS, have attempted to map and implement 20-neighbourhoods and conduct research into their effectiveness. Particular interest surrounds access to healthy food, community resources, leisure resources, accessible open space, and public transport, without the necessity for motorised transport.

Aiming to explore whether residents living in a ’20-minute neighbourhood’ engaged in more walking behaviour for leisure and transportation, the authors looked at responses from 843 adults across two cities, ‘high-density’ Melbourne, and ‘low-density’ Adelaide. Data were collected from a random sample of households from which the individual closest to the age of eighteen completed an online survey on the nature and duration of walking activities for recreation or transportation.

They found no evidence of any difference in recreational walking between 20-minute and comparison neighbourhoods, despite most people reporting that they do engage in recreational walking. They found a clear difference in walking for transportation in relatively high-density areas, but not low-density areas, concluding that this difference may be due to perceptions that walking is more effective given the proximity of services and transport hubs. This potentially indicates that individuals were more likely to commence their public transport journey with a walk rather than a drive, likely due to proximity of suitable public transport options and typical traffic congestion.

Overall, these findings suggest that the 20-minute neighbourhood has little effect, especially on levels of recreational walking. The authors suggest the following cautions in the interpretation of these findings. Firstly, as a cross-sectional study, no causal relationship can be inferred. Secondly, no measure of the quality of services was taken, merely a count. It might be that additional infrastructure (benches, signs) would benefit recreational walking.