{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02880354505169867, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01624815361890694, 'mean_word_length': 5.707920792079208, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Relationships among Community Characteristics and Walking and Bicycling for Transportation or Recreation

Purpose. Compare walking and bicycling for transportation and recreation with the percentage of the community devoted to parklands. Methods. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (N = 206,992), Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (N = 409,025), and Trust for Public Land (N = 55) data were used to estimate recreational walking and bicycling, utilitarian walking and bicycling, and parkland as a percentage of city acreage. Data were linked at the metropolitan statistical area or city level (N = 34). Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the associations among recreational and utilitarian walking and bicycling and parkland acreage. Results. Utilitarian walking and bicycling and parkland acreage were significantly correlated (r = .62, p < .0001). No significant relationships were observed for leisure time walking or bicycling. Discussion. Communities with more parks had significantly higher levels of walking and bicycling for transportation. Urban design features associated with leisure time physical activity might differ from those associated with transportation-related physical activity. Further studies are needed to articulate the relationships among community attributes and purposes of physical activity.